Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 20

< 19 November	21 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @193 · 03:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States television series cancelled or ended after 2011 season

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Listcruft. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for (a) being listcruft and (b) per Wp:CRYSTAL (yes, I know it's sourced, but I bet any money you like, stuff's going to be randomly put on there). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Umm, there really should be a speedy delete for situations like this. Hoax maybe? Meh. As it is, delete as a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to (create) 2011 in American television (there are year articles for US TV already, just not for 2011 yet). 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We don't even know 1/20 of what's happening in 2010 yet. No need for a 2011 article at all. Nate • (chatter) 06:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As an encyclopaedia and if we want to keep in the form of printed encyclopaedias I feel we should be documenting things after the fact rather that in advance. The world may end tomorrow so therefore we would not be factually correct about anything in 2011, let alone for the rest of 2009! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really sick of this TV fancruft (aka this and future TV schedules) being created long before it has any value at all. WP:CRYSTAL and a fresh serving of trout to the article creator. Nate • (chatter) 06:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's crystal through and through. That Oprah currently intends to quite in 2011 does not mean that she will. On top of this, even after 2011 this is a ridiculous list of no value. There will be a dozen or more shows that are "cancelled" in 2011. So what? If they were notable shows (as oprah clearly is) this will be duly noted on their articles. Really, this is supposed to pretend to be trying to be an encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I get the premise-- someone has announced that a show's last season will be the 2010-11 TV season-- it's still crystal ball reading, even for the current season (2010 or 2009-10). Star Trek was cancelled after the 1968 season, Bob Newhart announced that he would not do his show after the 1977 season, Gunsmoke's last season was 1966-- and each one did more shows anyway when the decision was reversed. Even at that, this would be a fairly limited list until the 2010-11 season is in progress. Mandsford (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speedily, I'd have thought. Of no use, and in any case series get cancelled and then are reborn on another channel all the time. Tris2000 (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL--Fbifriday (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FANCRUFT there are only TWO entries which would both be mentioned in there respective articles. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in line with WP:CRYSTAL. Who knows what- if anything- that's now on will still even be around in 2011. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Welles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Aside from being related to three very notable people, I don't see that the subject has any notability (no acting roles, etc.) Pinkadelica ^♣ 23:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, end of. Guinness (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No accomplishments of her own. One mention in Time Magazine on the occasion of her marriage; that's not enough to make her notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete i couldnt find anything either, and presumably any incident of note would have good coverage. she is mentioned in her parents articles, thats enough here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. All this name dropping means nothing. DarkAudit (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, article only seems to establish that she is related to these people, nothing more; almost WP:TRIVIA Sanguis Sanies (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Page moves during AFD discussions are extremely disruptive ~~and it is disingenuous for the person who moved the page to then vote to redirect the page to the new location~~. In any event this isn't sourced and is original research so the voices argusing for deletion are much better placed then those arguing for a keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC). Struck comment on the vote as it turns out the move was made by another user and this was just moved to correct the capitalisation. Nevertheless, it does show how confusing and disruptive page moves are during an AFD as the logs don't follow the page and it is incredibly difficult sometimes to follow the history of an article when you are closing a discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bong cooler

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Published original invention, i.e., original research. Sources are from someone's personal "howto" sites. No independent sources found. Xuz (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and Keep You know what, this looks like an interesting device. There are certainly plenty of independent sites with mention of one of these. I can see that none of the ones I looked at would be what Wikipedia calls a reliable source, and there is no specific assertion of notability but I think this is one of those occasions when we ignore the rules. Guinness (talk)

Keep a notable piece of computing equipment. A lack of notable sources is not a reason for deletion. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I just found a reliable source for it. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been moved to Evaporative Cooling Tower. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Evaporative cooler#Evaporative cooler designs if WP:RS can be found about it. OTOH, this seems like a niche-application device, so maybe better to put it in Computer cooling .A lack of sources is a good reason to delete because WP:V is a core policy, as well as being evidence for the WP:N guideline. It indeed does look interesting, but that's not the criterion for inclusion. Someone quick get us some sources so we can decide if it's got enough WP:V to merit inclusion in those articles or if I should change my !vote to delete as a piece of WP:NFT lore. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The move of the article to Evaporative Cooling Tower was clearly inappropriate, as the article only descibes one particular application of such cooling towers amongst a minute group of hobbyists, whereas the total subject of evaporative cooling towers is vast, and can be dealt with in the cooling tower article until there is enough content to split it off. No reliable sources have been offered to support the article contents, and this is precisely the opposite of the kind of article that should be given any leeway in regard to sourcing. There is no reason to suppose that offline or non-English sources will exist for this subject, so we should judge it by the non-existence of online sources in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete if it's interesting to more than the author there must be some references it can draw on, especially with so many online publications devoted to computer technology. If none can be found it fails any test of notability. JohnBlackburne (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Evaporative cooler ^Bongo_matic 03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I see it's already been done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella attack

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially original research. Yes, people have been attacked with umbrellas at various times, but there don't seem to be any references that discuss 'umbrella attacks' as a phenomenon, as opposed to discussing individual ones. Robofish (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, interesting. But unfortunately no references for scholarly of other research of the phenomenon, only particular cases are reported. BTW, purse attack and purse defense are much more common :-). Xuz (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. As the nominator says, the "umbrella attacks" is not notable as a phenomenon. Salih (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. WuhWuzDat 07:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Good thing that we don't accept other stuff as an excuse, since we have material on trout slapping lying around :) Favonian (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can find no evidence that the type of umbrella attack described in this article has been discussed as a phenomenon by reliable sources. It may be that the type of attack that killed Georgi Markov, which is what I was expecting to see in the article, is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bulgarian umbrella. A look through the Google Books search results, which provide the best idea of relative long-term notability, shows that this is the most commonly used meaning for this phrase, and, in the long term, will be what readers typing in the phrase will most likely be looking for. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we define clandestine murder as "attack"? IMO the legal term would be "assault". Mukadderat (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There do not need to be scholarly or academic sources, just sources talking about the subject in substantial way. Where is it stated otherwise? Nor need there be "research". Reports are enough. Where is it stated otherwise? There are other parts of the world besides the ones that universities do research on. I'm not great supporter of using the GNG when we have something better to go by, but this is the sort of article where we do not & so we must rely on it. . DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm of two minds on this original idea from an article by a new contributor. On the one hand, it would be a logical redirect to the article about Georgi Markov's 1978 murder, which was done by a weapon disguised as an umbrella; and in this case, this is so far a list of incidents where someone happened to be carrying an umbrella while stressed. On the other hand, "umbrellas can do more than keep you dry" and can be used for self-defense [1] and can be used as a weapon [2], and it's less conspicuous than a walking stick or a handgun, though pepper spray is better to carry around. I lean towards saying that this could be made into an encyclopedia article. Mandsford (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Mandsford.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to say I'm impressed by the Google Books source found by Mandsford above, which shows that there has been at least one published book which discusses umbrellas as a weapon. I'm still not sure there's enough to justify keeping this article, but perhaps it should be merged into Umbrella#Use as a weapon instead? Robofish (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are numerous things that may be and are used for attack. Many of them are reported in media. While there are cases of attack or defense using umbrellas, there is no scholarly discourse of "umbrella as a weapon". Therefore this article fails "WP:SYNTH" criterion. Or are we going to have a series of articles boulder attack, brick attack, needle attack, beer bottle attack, dolly attack, baseball bat attack, wrench attack, crowbar attack, fence pole attack... ? Mukadderat (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on whether people, when they go out for a walk, carry along with them a boulder, a brick, a needle, a beer bottle, a dolly, a baseball bat, a wrench, a crow bar, or a fence pole. I like to take along all those things. There's no such thing as too careful. Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to umbrella and move sourced material there. There is no such term. ^Bongo_matic 03:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any article that starts out, "An umbrella attack is a coordinated assault on someone or something that can lead to a variety of emotions and reactions" is an assault on reason. But even if this article was better written, nothing can change the fact that the topic of umbrella attacks has no secondary sources. Yes, people have been attacked by assailants wielding umbrellas, but the topic of umbrellas as weapons has no secondary sources. 208.59.120.194 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - The topic is a synthesis, mildly amusing but it has no place here. It struggles even to make its point, as much of the article describes things that aren't attacks. Stripped of them and you're left with the already covered Bulgarian umbrella and some minor unrelated and entirely non-notable events. JohnBlackburne (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @194 · 03:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knife and Wife

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not at all notable Bumlord97 (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One-off which didn't seem to get much coverage at the time or since. All I can find other than the ref used in the article is this piece from the Evening Standard (unfortunately not free to view, but the summary can be seen). Doesn't seem to have much notability to it other than the people involved. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this one-off episode. Joe Chill (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Knife and Wife" (entered with the speech marks on Google) returns over a million hits, the vast majority of which seem to be referring to the show itself. The show has an article all to itself in the BBC Guide to Comedy reference manual. It was voiced by some extremely notable voice actors, also part of a very notable series (the Comedy Lab). --Edchilvers (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why delete a perfectly good and notable article, this was a cult comedy show on a cult series and an important project for the cast involved? --Mr runt (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – I smell socks → [3]. MuZemike 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is literally three sentences long despite being over three years old now, and there's only one shaky source to support any of it. Hardly what you could describe as a "perfectly good and notable article". -88.108.201.150 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Socks or no socks, this appears to be an insignificant one off with no lasting notability to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and Delete. Doesn't appear notable. Even IMDB isn't interested. I would change my mind if someone could provide suitable references, but I've had a very quick look myself and can't see anything that caught my eye. If indeed it is relevant to Comedy Lab then perhaps a paragraph in there wouldn't go amiss, but I still think this should be simply deleted rather than re-directed Guinness (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think GFDL or whatever licensing scheme we've moved over to now prohibits a "merge and delete". We either merge, or we delete, but cannot do both. JBsupreme (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I would probably go for a straight delete...even one paragraph in the Comedy Lab article would be a considerable fraction of the entire article. Guinness (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A part of history of animation and lots of google links for "Knife and Wife"+animation, hence notable. The article is expandable. Xuz (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of those are copies of the original broadcast press release, lists or brief mentions in other contexts. Show me one article about the animation in a reliable third-party source. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The coverage is not significant. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of hits on Google, frequently cited in reference books. Simply because there is not a lot of articles on the internet is a pretty shallow reason for deleting an article--Edchilvers (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are only 21 hits on google for "Knife and Wife"+animation (the fact these aren't significant I stated above) and one results on google books which is a dictionary. Would you care to cite some of these sources? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Radio Times to Comedy by Mark Lewisholm, published every couple of years gives this show an article all of its own, the book is pretty definitive. The aerticle is also mentioned in many Monty Python related literature as it was originally intended to be a Terry Jones vehicle - look in the index of their 'autobiography.' --Edchilvers (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not being able to find an article on the internet doesn't make it non-notable. Notable article, notable people involved, I don't see the issue --Mr runt (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (Note that Mr runt has already !voted above when originally listed). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment The original nomination was loaded with socks, we should be able to vote again, there doesn't look as if there is going to be enough to carry a clear consensus in this vote either--Edchilvers (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no need to vote again though, unless your mind has changed since your original vote, in which case you can just change it and explain why. Feel free to add extra rationale e.t.c., but when a debate is relisted, that's merely to get more new people to include their views in the AfD. It does not mean everyone needs to vote again. The old votes are still displayed and will still be counted upon the conclusion of the AfD (well, their opinions will be). Any socks/SPAs will be duly noted as such by the closing admin. There's literally no reason to vote again, and I can't think of a single relisted AfD where people have then went on to recast their !votes as though the original listing didn't happen. (Oh, and if there is no consensus to delete by the end of this, then the article is kept by default, so either way you're getting what you want). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course it's notable. Perhaps original nominator didn't watch Channel 4 much on a Thursday night. :-) Tris2000 (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the notablity guidlines on Wikipedia don't appear to contain the qualification "appeared on Channel 4 on a Thursday night". Perhaps you might like to propose an amendment. :-) Guinness (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL! You know what I mean, though. If he/she had seen the programme, I don't believe he/she would have queried its notability for an instant. Tris2000 (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy to me, please~~Redirect to Siriol ~~I will take a few days to search out one or several articles to move the facts to and then ask for a userspace delete.~~ I merged teh content to the parent company. A redirect will do fine. Miami33139 (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. May be notable one day, but not above the bar just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable child actress with one minor role, one uncredited appearance and 2 roles “in pre-production”. No evidence of other roles. Article also appears to be written by a talent agent. Previously PROD but removed by author. Does not meet basic notability guidelines, let alone WP:ENT. Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see nothing notable about this person at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is an upcoming actress and has several things that will be coming out in 2010. This should not be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talentupdate (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC) — Talentupdate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While that may be so, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ArcAngel (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My kids love Darian she is a great role model and actress! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.250.196 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that means absolutely nothing when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. In fact, I consider the first part of the IP's comment above to be WP:NPOV and the second part to be WP:OR, at least that's how I would classify it. ArcAngel (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for now. Not very notable now, but could become notable very soon with her new role. Maybe give her a little time to collect some ink? (Since we assume good faith, I will not act on my suspicion that there are sockpuppets in this thread.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she makes it and becomes notable in the sense of WP:ENT a new article can always be created. Favonian (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worse, she fails WP:GNG. Delete without prejudice toward recreation if and/or when this child actress gets some better roles and coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). deleting and then salting redirecft, notability isnt there yet Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Daniels (singer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. This article has been repeatedly switched to and from a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). Many users, known as 'redirecters' have had concerns that the article doesn't cite sources, these can only be added, rather than redirecting just because of no source. Another concern has been the notability. Lloyd Daniels is currently a contestants on the television talent show The X Factor. There are two other contestants who have articles: Joe McElderry and Jedward, both who are currently under deletion nominations. He is one of the six remaining contestants and is popular within audiences, not because of the fact he is the youngest contestant in the series, but because with people he has the likability factor, and popularity. I would call this article to be kept, but I will leave that for Wikipedians to decide. Hassaan19 (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep, but that seems to be the main justification offered. However, as someone known only for participation in a TV talent show there is no independent notability as yet. I42 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). Unlike Jedward, he has not yet achieved notability independent of the show itself. Robofish (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SIMILAR to Jedward, he has not yet achieved notability independent of the show itself. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep. I'm pretty sure that "is likely to be independantly notable soon" is not a valid reason, but that's what I think. Why not delay this decision til the end of the series and make it then, when we'll have a much better idea of whether or not Daniels is worthy of a solo article. Fol de rol troll (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally against rules of notability werldwayd (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Is currently appearing on the UK's biggest talent show. He may not be independently notable at the moment, but like on Britain's Got Talent, some contestants, who haven't been talked about much but have caused a reaction, appear to have an article before they have made it to the live shows. 82.36.17.10 (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!vote struck; address is fixed address used by Hassaan19. (S)he has been warned for multiple voting in this way already. I42 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a very popular artist becasue of his age and fan following. Joe maybe shouldn't have a page, becasue unlike Jedward and Lloyd he doesn't have a particular fan follwing that has been picked up on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.130.175 (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 — 81.152.130.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete and Redirect. no evidence of independent notability. Mukadderat (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't we go through this same thing with last years contestants? I think it came down to placing in a music competition, and since this kid hasn't placed, there are no grounds for keeping the article. Redirect is the best I can see happening. Sky83 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I voted to keep the Jedward article, but there is absolutely no reason to keep this one. Daniels is just your average run of the mill contestant, and has absolutely no notability outside of the show. Perhaps in the future he may be notable enough for a page, but at the moment not at all. (Kyleofark (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete and redirect - No notability independent of the show; WP:ONEEVENT. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. Searches find absolutely no trace. JohnCD (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wicthy Twins

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find anything on web/news search to indicate notability. Favonian (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by NuclearWarfare per A7. @Kate (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The California Wildfires

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable band WuhWuzDat 20:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An actual article about California wildfires on the other hand would be worthwhile. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per WP:BAND. Can find no external reference to album listed, which leads me to believe it's self-published. Only citation is band's own website, which does not appear to be online. Flying Toaster 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Unreferenced. Home page is not a valid source. Not enough albums to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Name will generate thousands upon thousands of hits, but almost nothing relevant to the band. DarkAudit (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Comprehensive Charity Football Match

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

totally non notable event WuhWuzDat 20:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just some elementary school football game, nn even with sources. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable, no sources but then I doubt that even the most parochial of local newspapers would cover it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a dictionary definition of 'non-notable'! Giant Snowman 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke pense

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

totally non notable person, speedy removed by another new account WuhWuzDat 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The SPA who removed the nomination is a vandal who authored an article on the "Caty Smith" mentioned in this piece of rubbish. Favonian (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. I can find MySpace and Facebook hits to show that this person exists, so I'm not convinced it's a blatant hoax. However, there are no clear claims of significance or importance—and certainly none that can be verified against reliable sources, since none are cited in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celiesia Trotman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete fraud (hoax). Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fraud, as in a hoax article? That's what I'm thinking because I find nothing for this supposed person. JBsupreme (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. Self-created and non-existent notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depression Anxiety Stress Test

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. Only claims of notability and cited info are of its topic, not the site itself, and WP:N doesn't inherit. Same author (and removed-but-not-resolved tagging problem) as at Software Development House (which is also up for afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software Development House), who created this site and for whom author is WP:COI. DMacks (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Also, the only hits I see on a websearch are the site itself and this article. Rnb (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. G11, reads like and advert, and no notability assertion. Guinness (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. MuffledThud (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just an advertising vehicle for a website. If you click on the link, you'll find out that you can take the test with complete privacy-- after you give them your e-mail of course. "Ask your doctor if ________ is right for you." Mandsford (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, author has serious conflict of interest issue, and there are no signs that this website is notable. This article is promotional. Haakon (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spam. Miami33139 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to ParticipACTION. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Body Break

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about television commercial. --Fremte (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Do we have any policy or guiideline that says we can't have articles about television commercials? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Merge as suggested below. This series of television commercials would appear to be notable. Sources may be difficult to find because it predates the popularisation of the Internet, but here is a contemporary source and these sources all seem to be written in a way that assume that the readers many years later are still familiar with the campaign: [4], [5], [6]("best-remembered for the 90-second 'Body Break' commercials hosted by handsome black-and-white couple Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod" appears past the free-view abstract) and [7]("the grinning, gregarious hosts of those ubiquitous Body Break television spots, Hal Johnson and Joanne McLeod"). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Phil Bridger. Kyle1278 20:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ParticipACTION. Body Breaks weren't commercials, they were a long-running series of PSAs, on a par with Hinterland Who's Who and Heritage Minutes. That having been said, it doesn't make much sense to have an article for Body Break separate from ParticpACTION. PK T(alk) 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a merge would make sense to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree now with Merge. Took a look at ParticipACTION. This is a good proposal. Thanks. --Fremte (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gheema-roobock

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject profoundly lacks notability. Malatinszky (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Whole-heartedly agree with nominator, this is a ridiculous "group" (the picture says it all) that probably thought it'd be funny to post something on WP. Miserably fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7. No assertion of notability. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @194 · 03:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Grief Recovery Institute

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic promotional text. If someone wants to stubbify and properly source there's a chance it's notable, but this article isn't appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Subject is notable and is sourced in a number of reliable secondary sources. Article does need significant work, however it should not be deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if someone wants to create a new article later then so be it, if nothing else we can collect socks. I don't see that the current sources establish notability. Unomi (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't judge solely on the current status as articles, in theory, are always being improved. Instead we are determining if teh subject of the article is notable enough. -- Banjeboi 03:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the organization has received quite a bit of media coverage and is clearly notable. Needing cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ThaddeusB. Also several gbooks citations. The article has severe problems and it is result of a paid entry, but none of these are reasons to delete an article on a notable subject. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even if someone's motives for creating articles and content are dubious - we'll still keep encyclopedic material. This does seem to have plenty of reliable sources asserting GNG, some assertion of notability can likely be gleaned and sourced from the many media bits. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I was discussing this with my wife and the idea that this is just some kind of promotion made our hackles rise. My wife reckons it should be deleted rapidly with fire, but I reckon you could possibly merge some bits of it to grief therapy. I'd stay and chat for longer but our dogs got out this afternoon and the little devils are running about the neighbourhood making a load of trouble. You ever tried herding pugs? My wife is going to drive the truck and I'll leap out and toss the pugs into the back. See ya around! Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The information about your personal life and what your wife thinks are generally digressing and disruptive. If your wife wants to !vote then she should get her own account. If an article has a promotional tone it needs clean-up rather than deletion if it's otherwise notable. -- Banjeboi 03:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you not call my wife digressing or disruptive. You have clearly never met my wife. Also, I don't see how you could see our comments as anything other than constructive. As my pal Artie says (far too often), "just because we have different opinions doesn't make either of us necessarily wrong". I guess to answer that you'd have to do some reading up about the nature of truth. Also, there are lots of organisations offering grief therapy. Should they all have a page, or is this one particularly special? If so, why? I can understand that Mc Donalds should have a page whilst H&H Fried Chicken and Kebabs doesn't, but what makes this grief recovery institute particularly special? All that talk of fried chicken and kebabs is making me hungry. I'm off to do some cooking. See ya around, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please limit your comments to the subject of this AfD. -- Banjeboi 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks noteable to me... A8 UDI 20:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is the root of a paid effort and clearly destroys the purpose of our hard work here as volunteers. We are clearly not an advertising venue, which seems to be the clearest motive behind this article's creation. Now, I understand the subject may be notable and stuff, but this should be a matter of principle; I'm familiar with WP:POINT, but, come on, getting paid to do this? Why should I volunteer my time while some bozo over-yonder is getting paid bucks to edit?! This will start driving editors away. Whatever is done, let's make sure we leave a good notice over at the editor's page reminding him, just in case he "forgot," that the article is now CC-BY-SA-3.0 and not the work of his source of income or him. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 08:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the principles that apply here are that we look to notability at AfD; and anyone can and is encouraged to edit here. Ergo we accept some are indeed COI or paid editors. Those aren't deletion reasons. And a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL reminder are on every edit window so no need to remind anyone. -- Banjeboi 03:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has enough secondary sources to prove its notability. Having issues with content is not a solid reason for deletion.--AM ^(talk) 10:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist. Might want to stubify. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not improved from version on 20 November: "He haunted book stores looking for a book that would help him deal with the emotions that were making his life unbearable." Really? This is an honest-to-god AfD keep, with this kind of sensational biographical narratives in it? I'm more than willing to take answers on that. Wikipedia is not a writing forum for a 10th-grader's homework. Sure, there's a "criticisms" section which is a breath of fresh air, but remember how you were always told on school to put those in with your writing assignments no matter what you were talking about, since that made it "fair"? This is a BLP with only passing references to how the organization fits in... and ironically the criticisms section is the best written in terms of POV. Just needs citations. Actually, the whole thing does, with the very large numbers of claims being made of the organization and affiliated persons.

However much paid editing and other SPAs make me ill, if it meets standards... that's that, and I know it. Some of what started as that type of article have actually turned out quite nicely over time. Unfortunately, this article seems to fallen through the cracks at creation in terms of quality standards of many important types. In honesty, I'm already 90% convinced this is worth an article on a notable organization, put WP:PROVEIT needs to be handled before it has a home here. Citations, notability. Delivering 2500 grief books to 10 million victims of the 2005 US Gulf Coast hurricanes is far from notability, which is what we have to work with now. The poor formatting and strange construction aren't the reasons I'm suggesting delete... I'm doing it because it ignores a lot of the most basic things required of an article. ...Think about how the article will look if this gets a keep and edits to removed uncited BLP info and other unverified claims are done immediately. How much article would be left? About half the criticisms section, and nothing more. That's what a "keep" opinion leads to, if the article remains as it is. ...I am open to the idea of a stub with proper citations if that much can be verified, and it can be worked on slowly from there. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Those remain clean-u rather than deletion issues. -- Banjeboi 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Am and Cyc.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article was commissioned and paid for by the subject of the article at the cost of $450.00 as an elance.com job offered by elance client peterrussell [8] (the only other jobs commissioned by him are also related to the Grief Recovery Institute [9] [10] - the first job is an attempt to insert a link to a Skeptic magazine article written by James and Friedman into Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, the second is for their brochure (see the attachments after logging into elance.com)). Given that the elance freelancer that created the article, righteous_helper, has been paid to create a few Wikipedia articles [11] in the past and another recently, the particular Wikipedia account that created this article has to have been a sock puppet created to evade community scrutiny. That said, the large quantity of Google News and Google Book results do seem sufficient for the subject to meet Wikipedia policy requirements for an article. It's worth noting though that the majority of those results seem to refer to the institute only as part of their introduction of James or Friedman (e.g "Friedman,, executive director of The Grief Recovery Institute") but don't actually include significant coverage of the institute itself, and that a lot of them are press releases/publicity pieces. Also, the only reliable secondary source (as opposed to press release or primary source) that covers the institute in the article itself is the WSJ one and that's hosted on grief.net, which is the institute's own website. Reducing it to a stub and rewriting it from scratch from an objective point of view, without regard to the current text and only from reliable sources is definitely required if it's kept. Brumski (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubbify Seems to be notable; AfD is not for cleanup. Tim Song (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. I see no information that could reasonably be merged either, if anyone feels a redirect then deletion does not stop it from being created. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul G. Myatt

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to notability aside from a silver star to be awarded next month (which is itself not notable, as per the discussion page for Silver Star [12]) Cathardic (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Admirable for his service to his country, but the award alone does not constitute inherent notability sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. Delete per failure to satisfy the guideline for notability for biographical articles.Edison (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I congratulate him on the honor; however, this article does not meet WP:BIO and he is not discussed in secondary sources. Angryapathy (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Benito Martinez (soldier). A bit of verifiable information does exist (i.e. he was honored in a resolution in the Tennessee General Assembly - SJR 063; brief mention about him from another soldier in the Athens Banner-Herald [13]; name listed in a book about the 25th Infantry Division (United States)[14]), however, I generally agree the reasoning of the above editors. If Benito's story includes Myatt, I would like to see him mentioned there. Location (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An honorable man but this is not going to meet guidelines for inclusion RadioFan (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Sant-Cassia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "noble," created by the first in a currently unraveling string of sockpuppets going back some years. There is only one independent source for the information in this article [15], the others either being Wiki mirrors or sourced from maltagenealogy.com or maltesenobility.com, sites in the process of being spamblocked MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#maltagenealogy.com_and_saidvassallo.com, which fails WP:V RGTraynor 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC) RGTraynor 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO due to a lack of multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established (not much verifiability either, but that's another matter).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tiny number of Gnews hits shows the man existed, but he appears to have gotten minimal coverage even in the local papers. No sources back the more extravagant claims of the article or show that the subject has any notability whatsoever. Edward321 (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin O'Ryan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is questionable whether all fictional DC Comics heroes are notable. All references are to comic books in which the subject appears. I was unable to find significant, reliable coverage for this character, as well. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator: Devlin O'Ryan was a bona fide member of the Legion of Super-Heroes, one of DC Comics' four major teams (along with the Justice League, Justice Society and the Teen Titans). To the best of my knowledge, every member of each of those teams has a Wikipedia page. Devlin was one of the glaring exceptions. The character is notable enough for inclusion. ABCxyz (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still see no sufficient assertion of notability, and the argument in my nomination stands; please see WP:OTHERSTUFF in response to your argument that the other characters have articles. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator: I would disagree with the comparison, given the clear precedent of granting a article to virtually every member of every major superhero team at Marvel and DC. Singling out this one member seems almost arbitrary. But, consensus will rule. ABCxyz (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OTHERSTUFF. "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo. Angryapathy (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given that every other Legionnaire has an article (and Devlin appeared in a fair number of more stories than some of the other less well known Legionnaires with articles), the character seems to be sufficiently notable to me. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A member of The Legion of Superheroes. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filewax

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I didn't go with WP:CSD#A7 since there is a claim of importance, but this definitely fails WP:WEB. PROD removed by IP (since IP also removed COI tag at same time, good chance it was the author while logged off). Singularity42 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have been happy with an A7 myself, though I have stopped posting CSD's for a number of reasons. In any case, there's really not enough there to establish notability or a reason to include it in the Wiki. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As nominator, I am now supporting an A7 speedy delete. The only claim of importance was the sentence "Filewax is one of the world's largest file-hosting sites." (which was probably copied from the article the author based the new article on). The new content now says the website came online in October 2009. Therefore, the claim of importance/significance is no longer credible, and A7 applies. I will tag the article accordingly. Singularity42 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep;non-admin closure; fraudulent nomination. J04n(talk page) 19:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Filone

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

sorry mister but this is stupid. now i know the rumor that the show hasnt been the same since he was raped and murdered but this fails notabulity rules. ok there's OTHER rules but just takes the whole bakery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.4.7 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah, I was just browsing through and noticed this crap right here. 166.137.6.134 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the sincerity of this nomination, I will have to say deletion. wow, there was nothing like this when I was on wiki three years ago. Well, bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Freeza (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Lord Freeza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: this AFD was improperly created, I moved and transcluded it today. tedder (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Noting that the nominator has no policy rationale, and the SPA's are offering much the same, it seems that this is vandalism. Angryapathy (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The nominator is yet another sockpuppet of the aforementioned ip address. For further information on this matter, please refer to this administrator talk page where I further bring up this issue. - Zarbon (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Phony nomination rationale. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki search

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Suggest to move to Wikipedia namespace then delete the redirect. Cenarium (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet general notability guidelines RadioFan (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this just plain does not belong in the project and I don't care where it goes. Miami33139 (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12301 Wilshire

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, unremarkable building in Los Angeles. Acroterion _(talk) 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like spam to try and sell/rent the building. Not notable, not mentioned in reliable sources. Angryapathy (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - MLS listing masquerading as an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a building. It's in Los Angeles. It's for sale. And? DarkAudit (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OrangeMike Newt ^(winkle) 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel sorry for the real estate company whose link has been posted here and the person who created the article. What an embarrassment. Mandsford (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not really sure what the harm is in having articles on buildings like this... they can certainly be informative, albeit to a small niche of users. Nevertheless I realize "harm" or lack thereof is a weak argument and consensus is clearly against these sorts of articles. There's nothing "notable" about this building in Wikipedia terms. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable building, not seeing how this could be anything but the spam it currently is RadioFan (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete not spam, this will be a remarkable building once the redevelopment is complete. it is the only building to be completely redone during the longest recession since the great depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.166.244 (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The arguments from his chair at a major university and his scheduled keynote address at the SOAS symposium are decisive. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Yanson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I strongly suspect failure of WP:PROF. Gscholar citations are minimal, Gnews nonexistent, Gbooks tiny. However, he works in a highly specialized field, so I refer to AfD in lieu of prod or even A7. Ray^Talk 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. I hate to vote against a bio of another linguist, but the article simply doesn't demonstrate the impact Dr. Yanson's work has had on the field. I have lots of professors who are great thinkers and do great work, but whom I wouldn't be able to write a Wikipedia article about under the current guidelines, as just being a great thinker is not enough. Many of the articles created by User:Tibetologist (the writer of this one) look more like CVs, and while I appreciate Tibetologist's work at fighting systemic bias on WP, we do have to uphold the notability criteria. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Changing to Keep. I think the plenary at the SOAS conference is enough. Hard to tell how big this conference is, but a keynote speech is a bigger deal even at a moderately important conference. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before deciding that Rudolf Yanson is unimportant please review the other pages I have created. You will see that I am trying to cover scholars of the Tibetan language and Burmese language somewhat comprehensively. In certain cases I do not have as much biographical information as I would like to. But after all it is a scholars bibliography and not his biography that makes him important. I do know that colleagues of mine around the world find these pages useful, and many wikipedia articles are devoted to much more trivial topics (star treck ships, manga characters, etc.). I have put a lot of work into these various articles, and hope that from time to time I would be given the benefit of the doubt. The Yanson article has already been there for some time, perhaps this shows that other editors do not find it worthy of deletion. Tibetologist (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't feel qualified to weigh-in with an opinion on this case, but I can tell you that you are mistaken on several "textbook" points. Notability is what determines if a subject merits an article, not usefulness (WP:N, WP:USEFUL). With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether you've put in a lot of work (WP:EFFORT) and it doesn't matter if there are other subjects, like manga, you feel are less worthy of an article (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Finally, time is no indication that people generally feel it should be kept. I'm afraid that, unless notability can be established, this article will very likely be deleted. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The subject works in one of the most obscure academic specialities one could expect to encounter and appears to have a presence there. Are there other scholars in the field who can comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
What about merging to an article on this field or people working in this field? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of the points made by Agricola44 are reasonable. I would like to make several counterarguments. Firstly, google hits are not a good measure of notability. In Japan and the US there are efforts to make databases of scholarly articles. As a consequence US and Japanese authors get lots of google hits, even if no one reads or cites their articles. Such efforts are not being made in Russia, this has more to do with the wealth of Russian academia and Russian government policy and has little to do with the notability of Russian scholarship. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should wish to present a reference work of human knowledge, and not a guide to google hits. It is my own view, and the view of most print encyclopedias that academic topics are inherently more noteworthy than manga characters or startrek ships, even if they are less popular. Popular and notable must be recognized to be different. Rudolf Yanson is probably the most prominent researcher in Old Burmese philology, if you think otherwise, how about writing some people in his field and asking if they have heard of him rather than simply (and lazily) doing google searches in English. Tibetologist (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment# The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

Yanson fits this bill, he was dean of the faculty, he is a professor (we don't give that title away as easily here in Europe as you do in the US), and is scheduled to give a key-note at an international conference Tibetologist (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt: @Xxanthippe: Southeast Asian linguistics is not that rare (although the historical side of that field is fading, nowadays people are more into experimental stuff), although it's no bioengineering or what have you, and most other people working in this area also don't have WP articles.
@Tibetologist: I don't think "usefulness" is a strong argument, as bibliographies of these professors can be found easily on academic databases, and biographical information can be found at their personal websites. But, if he really is about to give a keynote, that would be enough to satisfy notability (in my opinion) and if you can show us a link to that page (or perhaps a scan of the program) I would reconsider my vote. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'comment: I would be happy to send a poster for this event, with his talk advertised prominently. I am sure he has done many such things in the past, but my Russian is not great, so I have had more trouble researching Yanson than other Burmese scholars. Tibetologist (talk)

Or you could just indicate the name of the conference. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's scheduled to give the keynote address at the 2010 Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages Symposium hosted by SOAS.[16] I don't know if that's the one that Tibetologist had in mind. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Dean of Faculty in an equivalent university in the United States or the United Kingdom would get a unanimous "keep" if nominated for deletion (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Mumford), so why treat someone at Saint Petersburg State University any differently? This isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but of WP:OTHERSTUFFGETSKEPTATAFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Very weak Keep Keep Dean of faculty at a really major university such as this can be a sufficiently high academic position, though it is difficult to evaluate from an unfamiliar system. But it would seem to correspond to the US Provost-- what is usually meant by "Chief academic officer"; this is notable in a great university, though not as a general rule in all colleges--the person who decides on new programs, new faculty appointments, and tenure promotions. Much more important to be such a officer at St petersburg than a university president almost anywhere else. However, I would like some actual evidence that he holds this position, for I do not see any. It is even more difficult to evaluate non-English ;language publications in a subject such as this. G scholar is certainly useless for this sort of work--it essentially covers only mainstream english language journals. The G scholar results seem to be the basis of the article: but they amount to only 3 papers in edited volumes, and one book. We need some evidence besides that. If it is the intention to provide a complete list of everyone who has ever published a paper on the subject, then this does fail NOT DIRECTORY. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (after edit conflicts). It seems that, for such a major university, Saint Petersburg State University has a very limited web site - all you web designers and Internet marketing gurus should be getting on to them and offering your services. I can't find any confirmation that that the subject served as Dean of Faculty, which may well be a post that goes on an annual rotation, but this confirms that he has been head of the Department of Chinese, Korean and South-East Asian Philology since 1998, and this shows that he leads a team of about 40 faculty members, including seven full professors. That's still enough for me to stay with my unqualified "keep". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Superficial search indicates clear case of noted scholar in his area (key note speaker at his subjects major conference at SOAS (added ref to article)). Deaprtment page (added ref to article) lists him as head I think. Преподаватели - Профессор, зав.кафедрой д.филол.н. - Янсон Рудольф Алексеевич - http://www.orient.pu.ru/dept_china/ Rudolf Alexeevich Yanson's Departmental Page listing him as departmental head. But my Russian knowledge is limited to using google translate! (Msrasnw (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - I think this is just the sort of article that makes our encylcopedia really useful - A noted scholar in his field on which Googling alone is not so useful. Clear pass of WP:PROF No. 1 The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. via Keynote speaker at subjects important conference. That alone is enough. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yandex works far better than Google for searching notability in Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.21.13 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:PROF, we need some tangible and verifiable evidence of academic notability, such as citations of his work, reviews of his books, academic awards etc. Such evidence is not available here. I am a native Russian speaker and I did a bit of google searching in both Russian and English and found very little. It may be that google does not yet have access to various Russian sources, but that is not a good enough reason to keep the article. If and when some verifiable sources covering his work are forthcoming, the article may be re-created. For now, IMO, it should be deleted and maybe userfied, so that the creator of the article may keep working on it in his userspace. Nsk92 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nsk92 (WP:PROF). Eusebeus (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of Google footprint for a Russian academic in a specialist field is a weak deletion rationale, in particular with this list of publications, susceptible to WP:BIAS and general concerns about negative evidence. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is a professor and department chair at one of Russia's most prestigious universities. He is a notable scholar in his field, and should be on Wikipedia. The fact that he is at a Russian university rather than an American or British university should not make any difference. As to his area of expertise, it is not particularly obscure or narrow, as some above have suggested — many notable linguists study far more "obscure" languages than Burmese. BabelStone (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment about obscurity There seem to be only two departments offering graduate work in Burmese in the English speaking world: Northern Illinois, and SOAS. see Burma studies--confirmed by my own search. There seem to be a scattering of universities offering elementary courses: I noticed Hawaii, and a few universities offering it on demand, including Yale and ANU and possibly USC. There are presumably others in Europe and Asia. As mentioned above, the St Petersburg site has neither individual pages for its faculty nor a list of courses, so it is impossible to tell directly what level they teach. The Russian page, and the incomplete pages it links to and it provides no useful information about this individual. The team of 40 people presumably represents the entire staff ofthe department, and Id assume its emphasis is not in Burmese. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger, DGG ,and Babelstone. Sufficient evidence of both contributions to field and of important position held to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. All things considered. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The majority appears to have come round to 'keep and the debate died down. Would it perhaps be appropriate to remove the deletion nomination from the article at this point? Tibetologist (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions usually last for seven days, so an administrator wil evaluate the consensus in a couple of days and remove the template from the article if appropriate. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion after 2 relists (apart from the nominator) and consensus is that the article does meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Mosenson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO by a long shot. He's won awards, certainly, but they all seem to be non-notable. Ironholds (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with the firm assertion that this "fails WP:BIO by a long shot." The article asserts his works have: been broadcast on IFC in Canada, received an award from the Secretary of Culture of Argentina, been broadcast on Canal 7 Argentina and has been shown at a number of festivals internationally. I think this requires a better familiarity with the festivals and awards in question. (Well, unless you're Argentinian and then you might already have a better idea than I.) - BalthCat (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well established young filmmaker who has been involved with numerous somewhat notable works. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is asserted and sourced. Needs WP:Cleanup for style and formatting concerns. Surmountable issues do not require article be deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Due to lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performous

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod. Unremarkable software. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. References provided are to primary or self published sources such as blogs or the download site. RadioFan (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar game? Similar to what? References are either it's own sourceforge page or a forum post. Neither is an acceptable source. DarkAudit (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, and primary contributor is also the game developer, so it falls under WP:CONFLICT. --Teancum (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have significantly improved the article, which was originally just copy&pasted from UltraStar subsection. Now there are 3rd party reviews linked. The program is important enough for many Linux distributions (Ubuntu and Debian linked in article) to ship it. The program is the only one of its kind, combining all the different types of rhythm/performance games, and also the only open-source band game. I hope that you consider these things before deleting it. Note: I am also an author of the software. Tronic2 (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Performous has been part of the UltraStar page for a long time, but due to the development done this year, it doesn't really fit there anymore, which I suppose to be the reason for Yoda to create a new page for it (I haven't been able to contact him to verify this). It seems to be the best choice the move it away from that article to a separate article, as has been done now. The UltraStar page itself has not been updated yet, pending the decision of this AFD process. Tronic2 (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, I'm drawing a blank for coverage from reliable sources. I'm afraid directory entries, forums and blogs don't quite cut the mustard for verifiability. Marasmusine (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survival of the Sickest (book)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

blatant and obvious hoax, subject book reportedly answers the question "Can a person rust to death? " Speedy declined, but this one needs a fast flushing! WuhWuzDat 15:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it may be deletable as spam, but it is clearly not a hoax. Amazon [17] has this book for sale. LadyofShalott 15:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I don't know if the nominator did any research, but this book is real, and by all accounts, notable, so I see no reason for deletion. Angryapathy (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Published by a major publisher (HarperCollins), apparently did make the NYT best seller list, certainly notable and by no means a hoax. Independent coverage from Publishers Weekly as well, and has 77 customer reviews on Amazon (that's not a normal indicator of notability, but non-notable books barely garner more than a couple of comments). A provocative comment taken out of context does not constitute a hoax. Article needs the promotional tne turned down a notch or two, though. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pasting the below comments from the article's talk page. LadyofShalott 16:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page on "Survival of the Sickest (book)" should not be deleted because it is a book that talks about diseases, a very prominent encyclopedia topic, in a new and interesting way. Just as a point of reference, there is a thriving article for the book Freakonomics, which was produced by the same publisher and has a similar writing style (though it is about economics as opposed to medicine). I am still in the process of editing the article and to make it sound thoroughly objective and encyclopedia-like. This is not a promotion of the book. It is a book worth writing about because there are discussions worth having. There are controversial ideas presented and I hope to expose some them to the public criticism it has received. I am in no way affiliated with the author, book publisher, or their affiliates.

Thank you.

Imac4life (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Real book published by HarperCollins.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the nomination: Presumably, when the authors ask whether a person can "rust to death", they are employing dramatic language to discuss the well-described issues of iron overload (see hemochromatosis) and oxidative stress. It's perhaps overly melodramatic language, but the concept being discussed is a real one with some currency and legitimacy. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article was somewhat poorly structured and promotional in tone, having borrowed promotional quotes from the book, which while allowed, didnt help the article. i have tried to show notability with some more links, and trimmed out the parts that i think hurt the article. i see no question about the books notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. seems to be a relatively weak keep, could be revisited later. Cirt (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cécile Haussernot

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

if WP:ATHLETE applies to chess, she fails this as a 11 year old. she also fails WP:BIO with very limited third party coverage [18]. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We have generally deleted chess champions if the tournament was restricted by nationality, age and gender, but in this case the championship is a more prestigious European title in 2007 and 2009. The source listed for her 2009 win seems to provide some in-depth coverage, although I can only pick up the gist of it since it's in French. The WFM title by itself is not all that prestigious, but gaining it at her age is unusual. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Sjakkalle's investigation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her age distinguishes her, as per Sjakkalle. Grand Mattster 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Messer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not indicate encyclopedic notability: IMDb. Twice deleted via PRODs. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-06t11:54z 11:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just about notable enough. Has been mentioned in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mentioned 2 sources IMDb and published media in references/sources [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1233480/ (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2009
Keep - the article has been re-edited since it was first deleted and extra sources added to pass. Has reliable sources--Dreamsurfer (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet the guidelines. BearShare998 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but noting SPA concerns about the above votes (Pellican54 (talk · contribs), Dreamsurfer (talk · contribs), BearShare998 (talk · contribs)). The article needs heavy cleanup. Several of the sources are nonsense. Nevertheless, it seems Messer has made an adequate mark in the industry to have an article: two reviews in The Age and a blurb about him on Museum of the Moving Image's site. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy coi entry. Delete most of the article and leave what is sourced duffbeerforme (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD can be closed now. Consensus seems to be that he's notable enough but that it needs clean up and to be patrolled. If disruptive editing continues it can be protected. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MusicMaster (music notation software)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is utter trash. Aside from its poor format (no lead section, grammar mistakes, tone) this is not at all written in the style or spirit of Wikipedia. Some points:

I can see no notability on this topic.
It is an orphan article.
This is a clear advertisement for the product.
The tone is terrible. Some examples:

There is no getting round the fact that musical notation can be very complex and so, to some extent, 'easy to use' and 'comprehensive' are incompatible aims in the field. Whether MusicMaster has managed to get the balance right remains to be seen, but reviews have been favourable, and have all stressed that the package is easy to use.

- Musical symbols are also entered from the computer keyboord using the symbol which, with a bit of imagination, looks most like the musical symbol.
- Musicmaster is still relatively new and there are a few rough edges on the software. The early versions were not as stable as they could have been, and had a tendency to crash for no apparent reason. However, these problems now seem to have largely been resolved.
There is primarily a single contributor for this article.

Frankly, I strongly considered nominating this for a Speedy Delete. It does not belong on WP. Timneu22 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I gave it article the benefit of doubt with a request for reliable sources. None were added and I subsequently forgot about the article. It should definitely be deleted.--dbolton (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; promotional for non-notable product by SPA. Haakon (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that, as-written, the article is promotional is not a reason to delete. However, no evidence of any nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 03:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain potential

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure what this article is even supposed to be about. It seems like pseudoscience/original research - it originally cited the 10% of brain myth as a fact, and although that has been corrected, the general feel of the article still seems to be along those original lines. It also incorporates what looks like advertising for various "brain fitness" sites. fraggle (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and spam. DarkAudit (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is OR, and all the refs are not RS. Angryapathy (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above comments. some links are to neuroscience material that if useful can be used in real articles, if anyone cares to try. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor text and referencing (both the quality and formatting). Nothing useful in this article to be merged. Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data Terminal Ready

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One pin of the RS 232 interface. Like Ring Indicator, also not a subject for a stand-alone article because this article must give so much context to make any sense. Removing the how-to essay and modem trivia and duplicated content leaves nothing. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have too much information to be merged, would probably make the RS232 page too long UltraMagnus^speak 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reason given by User:UltraMagnus Reswobslc (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the concern about bloating the RS-232 article, but it already contains a lot of material that can be culled, e.g. RS232#Seldom used features (a seven-row table, plus 535 words in 12 paragraphs, entirely unreferenced) can be deleted or moved to a separate article, the second paragarph of RS232#Cables is mostly chat, some stuff about de facto behavior of modems belongs in the Modem article. I've re-built the RS-232#Pinouts table so it has a tiny summary of each signal, which means that the RS-232#Signals section can now be expanded without affecting the pinout table. - Pointillist (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging essential information back into RS-232. Sorry, Reswobslc, but there is too much detail here—all of it unreferenced. A subset should be merged back into the RS-232 article. - Pointillist (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree - so long as you think Hayes command set refers to a Wikipedia article and not an actual specification, the notion that it's "unreferenced" is a little bit inaccurate. The fact that Hayes doesn't make their original spec a free download on the Web that can be linked to, does not invalidate it as a source. Reswobslc (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is quite simple: you can't cite Wikipedia as a source. The concatenation stuff was unnecessary in that context anyway, so I have moved it to the AT command article. "Hayes original spec" is irrelevant: the &D command didn't exist in 1977 and there are perfectly good public sources for the AT command set as it is used today, e.g. the V.250 standard and the KDE documentation (which is licensed under GFDL). In fact I've added five references to the section, but I still think it is detail that belongs in a Wikibook, not an encyclopedia article. - Pointillist (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can however use the Hayes command set itself as a source, even if you have no link to it. Mind you, that is a primary source, which can be used, but only in some cases. For the specific balancing act here, see Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves and WP:PRIMARY. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other serial comms articles need a re-vamp, too. Flow control has only one reference, Software flow control likewise. In the days when 1200bps modems and Diablo 630s were hot (early 1980s) every programmer had shelves full of Sybex and Osborne reference books covering this stuff. It must be possible to cite better sources than the current ones! - Pointillist (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the main discussion is taking place at the Ring Indicator AfD, so I'll join in there. - Pointillist (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article about a sufficiently important and complex subject that meets both notability and verifiability criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: This level of detail should be moved to a Wikibook, since it approaches a how-to discussion inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect some content into RS232. Some of this belongs in Wikihow or elsewhere, but for sure some content is not about DTR. ^Bongo_matic 03:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is based on name invented by two journalists at the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post. This name is one used for official morality police groups in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. In Gaza, there is no such official group. The governing authorities in Gaza have not confirmed or denied the existence of such a group. All other mainstream media organizations do not use this name, and while they may discuss rumors of such a group existing under another name, they all repeat that there is no such confirmation that it is an official body in Gaza. Accordingly, I feel this article fails WP:N (based as it is primarily on two sources from the same newspaper), is prone to WP:OR (some of which I have already had to remove more than once), and basically amounts to a WP:HOAX. It is not encyclopedic, and weeks of searching have produced no WP:RS's having anything of value to add to the page that might establish notability of the claims being put forward by the journalists from The Jerusalem Post. PS. I would further add that it may be helpful to review the talk page discussion to see some of the issues that have been covered in prior discussions. Tiamut^talk 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tiamut^talk 13:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Tiamut^talk 13:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At first glance, there seems to be some sourcing from non-Israeli newspapers/news-sources as well: Al-Arabiya and the Associated Press (via the UK's Guardian newspaper). Not sure about the Examiner, as it seems to be some sort of news clearinghouse website. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Arabiya is cited in our article as referring to an "unknown group" (in 2007) by that same name. There are no subsequent reports by them on the group and it is not connected to Hamas by them.

The Associated Press report discusses one of the incidents covered in the reports by the journalists fom the Jerusalem Post. It does not use the name used in our article for this group and it notes that while there are rumors about Hamas running some kind of morality police, there is no confirmation of this. In fact, all major news coverage of that same incident fails to mention this group or its association with Hamas. That is a personal theory put forwad only by the journalists at The Jerusalem Post. Tiamut^talk 07:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - barring the possibility this is mainly propaganda, which it seems to be, it would be helpful if the organisation's Arabic name etc was included.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The organization's Arabic name is not mentioned in any reports on this supposed group in Gaza. There are no reports in the Arabic media on on the group in Gaza that I can find either. Including the Arabic name based on the translation available at Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Saudi Arabia) would be (in my opinion) WP:OR and misleading, given the lack of coverage specific to the Gaza case. Tiamut^talk 07:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This seems to be a case of disguised WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The group is documented in multiple reliable sources (both Israeli and Arab, as it happens), so WP:HOAX is irrelevant and frankly insulting. No reason was given as to why this article is "prone to WP:OR", or why that would be a reason to delete it. Invoking WP:N is bad encyclopedic judgment: the group polices a population of a million people according to strict rules, so it is inherently notable. The nom's various concerns regarding the name and so on were addressed at great length on the talk page, and there was no reason to bring them up at a deletion discussion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with it. The title of this article refers to a group that supposedly exists in Gaza but that has received no major media coverage. You are well aware that I have spent weeks looking for further confirmation of the group's notability, and have found none. In fact, the group does not seem to exist, or at least, the evidence regarding its existence is extremely circumstantial. There is no official confirmation or denial from Gaza regarding its existence because no one in Gaza has even been asked if such a group exists under such a name. The name is an invention of two journalists from The Jerusalem Post who seem to like the idea of naming a so-called "morality police" in Gaza (whose existence is also not clear) after supposedly similar groups in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. It is, and MacRusgail notes above, "mainly propaganda", and non-notable propaganda at that. Tiamut^talk 07:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added a {{refimprove}} tag to the article, as it could stand to have more sources from main stream media. Several of the existing sources -- especially the one from the Examiner.com -- read like Opinion/Editorial/Blog articles and not WP:RS. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 08:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate any effort to improve the article and demonstrate that it is in fact notable, a notability tag calling for better referencing had been up for the better part of the last two months, despite being removed a number of times. As I stated above, I actively spent some time looking for sources to improve the article as well. I could find nothing and am sceptical that tagging the article for another two months would provide a different result. As an inclusionist, I dont like nominating articles for deletion. But I believe this article is dangerous in that it promotes what seems to be the personal theory of two journalists at the same newspaper as fact. Tiamut^talk 10:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I read up on Khaled Abu Toameh and it is apparent that he is quite pro-Palestinian (not anti-Israel, but rather anti-corruption and pro-progress), so it does not seem that he made this up to bash or degrade. His reporting seems to quite revealing and accurate when everyone else self-censors or passes over criticism. Apparently something like this does exist, though it might not be 'official'. In that case, the article could be toned down to be less about the group and more about the trend to police the culture in the Gaza Strip. --Shuki (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Per all the above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Otièno Olausson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No caps in a fully proffesional league. Kongsvinger has been in the Norwgian First Division for years until now, but this player left the team some years ago. Also fails WP:GNG. Rettetast (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the nominator hits the nail on the head. Geschichte (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are the second and third levels of Norwegian football not fully professional? DarkAudit (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I guess the reason is: small country = not enough sponsors or attendants. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero Google News hits and no evidence of notability. Jogurney (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Million Dollar Strong Project

poorly sourced, written and just pure crap. Not to mention that its not even listed on imdb. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Don't recreate until the release is certain. Ivanvector (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, this article may be premature. We also need citations for the (dubious) quotes listed, or they need to be removed entirely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised hasn't been edited in over a year too.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete A7. Secret ^account 21:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merbridge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:COMPANIES. I can't find any coverage in third party reliable source. Article apparently created by the CEO. noq (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, there are no third party sources that even mention this company. It's just ad copy for the company; we don't need this on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardboard coder

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NEOLOGISM - "The term has yet to be popularised". The article does not show any indication of notability No reliable sources given. noq (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC) noq (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: also WP:WINAD JohnBlackburne (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadratic Electrolysis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable concept. Nothing on google Pontificalibus (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - patent nonsense or possibly spam. Ivanvector (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 14:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Melody Theory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from Wikipedia not being a dictionary to begin with, the term appears to have been coined by the original creator of this page. It doesn't establish third party verification and/or usage of this term. No external links or references to this term as described aside from links to the individual words in the title. In addition Wikipedia isn't a clearinghouse for invented phrases of spurious origin. DJBullfish 09:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion, for reasons stated. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not think that this article satisfies any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Purposely, the article's references are funny enough, from Wikipedia itself! Well, since the article appears to be a dictionary page, I agree with the deletion process. But why are you placing this on the AfDs? You should have CSDed this page instead. ----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 10:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Under which speedy criteria? There isn't one to cover original research. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as original research. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Effects

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No label, no notable singles; fails WP:BAND. JaGa^talk 08:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:BAND. I can not find "multiple non-trivial published works" from WP:RS (unless we determine the article from the school paper to qualify), and the band does not meet any of the other criteria as far as I can tell. Gongshow ^Talk 17:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Melikian

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed the {{db-spam}} tag because this author may be notable; a promotional biography should not be speedy deleted if there is a chance of its being notable. A Google News Archive search returns ten results; however, all ten refer to different people who share the same name. Armen Melikian appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I will withdraw this AfD if reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability. Just some text about a book he wrote, which doesn't seem to be a notable book. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above by Cunard, I originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, but a discussion is good. Even if the article is retained, it will have to be completely rewritten. If "Books In Print" doesn't think the book is worth listing, that's says something about its notability. There is a website for its publisher "Two Harbors Press", but I think the site is unfinished because the connection to order the book doesn't work.WQUlrich (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any reliable sources writing about this author. Note that the book publisher in their About Us page specifically states "Many of our authors are not yet established, perhaps just beginning their publishing careers." which might explain the lack of coverage bout this person. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Taylor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contest prod. Non-notable "multi-talented individual" who seems to have done a lot of volunteering and published an article, but that's all. Her only real claim to notability is being published in major poetry anthologies, which are however from a vanity publisher and have been criticised as scams. Fails several key WP policies and guidelines including WP:BIO, WP:VER and WP:NPOV andy (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any sources that bring this entry to a level where it can pass WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity article. I see nothing that establishes the subject's notability. EyeSerene^talk 10:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Most participants seem to agree that the subject is adequately notable, and thus consensus is that the article should be kept as such. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Poe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable unelected political candidate at state level, article is list of trivia about his non notable life. WuhWuzDat 07:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there may be the impression that this page is being created purely for advertising purposes, but I would like to point out that Bob Poe has had a huge impact on this state and that while he may be running for Governor of Alaska, that doesn't mean that his accomplishments are not noteworthy. I will also point out that the two other Democratic contenders for this office, Hollis French and Ethan Berkowitz, already have wikipedia pages listing some of their involvements with Alaska politics. I think that Bob Poe is a notable person who should have a page on this site. If you have specific concerns about the content, please let me know. I tried to write it as objectively as I could, but I'm happy to make changes to comply with the wiki-guidelines.

Thank you.

I have seen the message that was left explaining the issues with the article. I apologize for my lack of knowledge, but I'm trying to pick it up as fast as I can. I was under the impression that Alaskan Democratic Politicians were able to have pages through wikipedia, but I'm still figuring out how to properly categorize it. Is he not allowed to have a page because he has not yet been elected?

I also did want to specify that I am not Bob Poe. I found out that he needed some help on his campaign and thought I could write an objective article about his work with the state. I will try to make the necessary changes to make it un-biased. Governorbob (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several reliable sources seem to cover the subject. [19][20][21][22][23] and Google News has 300 more. Regards So Why 09:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SoWhy. Seems notable enough. Give it a few references and you'll be OK. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy He is not per se notable unless and until he qualifies for the Primary - which he has not so far done. WP:CRYSTAL applies -- I suggest it be placed into userspace with no bias against moving to mainspace if and when he actully runs. At this point, objectively, hundreds of people may announce oplans to run for (say) President, but WP practice is tht they do not get articles on that basis. Collect (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True but unlike most others, he did have several previous positions and significant coverage, so he probably meets WP:BIO, even if he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Regards So Why 13:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Y2K Senior Project Manager and Commissioner of Administration" was his highest position. "Worked for" is not any claim for notability in the political sphere. Not notable for that. Is Hollis French notable enough> I doubt it. Otherstuffexists is not a reason for much at all. Ethan Berkowitz has held significant legislative posts, was a prior candidate for Lt. Gov., Combination is notable enough. Poe has not been elected to anything, and this should be userfied until and unless he qualifies for a primary as a minimum. Collect (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider re-reading Wikipedia's notability guidelines in WP:BIO. The primary criterion in full: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Doesn't have anything to do if whether mentions of him in those sources was because he "worked for" someone or held some other kind of position. Hollis French clearly qualifies under this -- he's been mentioned in the press numerous times for his work in the Alaska Senate and as chair of Senate Judiciary, as well as all the hullabaloo around Troopergate. As explained with my vote below, Poe has had numerous mentions in the press for the work he's done in his various positions. Given those mentions, he meets notability even though none of those positions were elected positions. -- Yksin (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POLITICIAN. He does not meet choice 1 (at least a first-level sub-national opffice). He does not meet choice 2 (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage). He does not meet choice 3 even (Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office) as he was never elected to anything nor even tried, nor is the candidacy for Governor more than his desire -- like several hundred candidates for President last year who never even made the ballot. Unless and until he qualifies at least for a primary, he fails to meet notability guidelines. WP does not say ";pts of local papers saying you want to run" makes you notable, as that would mean all the folks who announced their candidacy for President would automatically be notable for WP (they all get press coverage, to be sure). Sorry -- no damage is going to be done by saying "wait until the primary" for an article at all. Collect (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN does not trump this statement on WP:BIO: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." As long as he meets that primary criterion -- and he does -- he needs nothing else.

I'm currently going back through all 288 newspaper articles in Newsbank for the three major Alaska newspapers (Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner). References to him are found in every year but two from 1985 to 1999 (1992 & 1996), including his public service under several different governors (he's served a total of 5) as well as his heading up the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. Some of the articles in fact are full length articles that go into considerable detail about his biography & career (i.e., are more than just "Bob Poe, head of AEDC [or whatever he was in charge of at the time] said thus'n'such" type articles. Clear notability.

If Bob Poe was only an unelected political candidate with no record in secondary sources outside of his candidacy, your argument would have merit. If Wikipedia only had biographies of politicians, your argument would have merit. But since neither of those things is the case, your argument fails. Poe has a significant record of public service & public achievement which is recognized by the coverage he's received over almost a quarter of a century in the Alaska press. That's notable. He'd deserve an article here without any political candidacy at all. --Yksin (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that WP is intended to have BLPs on every "Commissioner of Adminsitration" for every state. His other "public service" is trivial at best. Mentions other than his apparent candidacy in NYT? Zilch. Lots of mentions for a Florida "Bob Poe" who actually was head of the Democratic Party in Florida. Substance? Other than press releases and this candidacy, out of three hundred articles, I find a mere handful which actually say anything about him, [24] "“I have never run for office before,” he said. “I’ve thought of it, but always came to the conclusion that ‘no,’ I’m not going to do it.” And, concerned about lacking name recognition, Poe knew he needed all of the two years leading up to November 2010’s election day. “Who’s Bob Poe?” was a question posed by the Alaska Ear in announcing an early rumor that Poe intended to run." sure appears to be a person who is admittedly not notable. And a search for "commissioner of administration" finds zilch mentions in all of WP. Collect (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about WP being "intended" to have an article on every Commissioner for Administration for every state? I never said any such thing. Nonetheless, Poe clearly meets Wikipedia's primary criterion for notability under WP:BIO. The fact that he hasn't been mentioned in the NYT is neither here nor there: NYT isn't the only "reliable source independent of the subject of the article" that Wikipedia accepts as reliable. The fact he's not a household name (as Sheila Toomey of ADN's political gossip column Alaska Ear, & Poe himself, recognize) doesn't mean he's not notable according to Wikipedia standards: he still meets that primary criterion. Sorry that you apparently don't have access to Newsbank to see the numerous references inclusing some lengthy articles about Poe in the Alaska press. Not all newspapers have all their archives on Google. Some of those sources will become apparent as the originator of the article & I add more info to this article. (I've emailed her copies of the best sources I found in Newsbank's archives & she says she'll be working on it tonight. She's also registered for a change of username.) --Yksin (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until after the primary, at least Candidates are not notable merely by being candidates. Especially when the candidate hasn't even gotten past the primary stage. Sure, there are references and coverage, but take a closer look at those references. All of them are local news sources covering a local story. The St. Louis paper is only covering this because he is a Missouri native. The Alaska TV stations and newspapers are covering it because it's... happening in Alaska. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't cover it. But it's a current story, so naturally there will be a good bit of press between now and the actual primary. If he wins the primary, then I'll reconsider. Until then, the notability isn't really there. DarkAudit (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As written, it's a thinly-veiled curriculum vitae. It needs to assert notability more effectively or go. Newt ^(winkle) 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is clearly notable. Per WP:BIO on politicians, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Here's that primary criterion in full: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

A check of the database Newsbank (America's Newpapers) for coverage of the name "Bob Poe" finds these mentions in the states three highest circulation newspapers:

Anchorage Daily News -- 188 mentions (since 1985)
Juneau Empire -- 92 mentions (since 1998)
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner -- 8 mentions (since 2001)

The articles I've taken a look at so far especially cover his record as Commissioner of Administration under Gov. Tony Knowles and his record as the president of the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation.

It's typical for people to claim that a figure is non-notable simply because they personally have never heard of them, or to assume that their notability (if they're a politician) is based purely on whether or not they've been elected, when it is frequently the case that those people have significant levels of achievement and recognition in the press or other reliable secondary sources. The fact that, as DarkAudit claims, The Alaska TV stations and newspapers are covering it because it's... happening in Alaska is irrelevant -- Wikipedia's notability guidelines don't say squat about a person having to be notable outside his own locale in order to be considered notable.

I hope that admin who decides on this AfD actually reads these comments, because it's clear that some of the commentators are voting based on their own definitions of notability, instead of the criteria used by Wikipedia itself.

Meantime, we have a new article that's clearly in need of improvement that was started by a new & inexperienced editor. That's no reason to delete the article: it's a reason to improve it, & also to help the new editor learn & gain experience. SoWhy and I have also both suggested on the originator's talk page that s/he change her/his username to reflect that s/he is not in fact Bob Poe editing his own page. -- Yksin (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ample reliable sources about this individual attest to his notability. WP:POLITICIAN does not preclude the inclusion of biographies about candidates who pass WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not paper, so there is no reason to delete this article, which passes Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Having reviewed the article, I do not see any indication that this is promotion. I've added a couple more references to the article to verify the uncited statements. The article is neutrally-written and clearly establishes notability. Deletion would be unreasonable and would be a net negative to the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After numerous errors on my part being brought to my attention, I believe that I, with the help of others, have made the necessary changes to the Bob Poe page so that it will comply with the WP:BIO guidelines. I made a gross error in judgment when I chose the username "Governorbob" to create the page, which, as you can see, I have mended. I feel that the number of sources and the neutrality of the article should ease the concerns of the first admin that felt the page should be deleted. I hope that the administrators reviewing this case will feel the same way. Thank you. DoomCow (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The articles in the default search in Gnews are mainly about a florida politician of the same name. The better search is [25] which gives a few substantial hits--the best ref is [26] which calls him as relatively unknown compared to the other candidates, but is a major story. This confirms my guess that with sufficient expansion of gnews and a look in local sources, essentially every state level politician who has been a major party candidate for anything, or who has even made a substantial run for such a candidacy, will be found notable by the GNG. Whether we should cover them here is another matter. Perhaps one of intentions when the GNG was originally adopted, was that it would keep out people of this very minor level of accomplishment, on the assumption that nobody would bother to write about them, and that sources would not be found. It seems to be gradually working the other way: reporters will write about anyone in politics, or anyone or anything else where they can get a story, and sources will be found for all of these. On a scale of 1-10 of inclusiveness, I tend to be maybe a 7. the GNG was thought to be 5, but it is now 8, and going higher. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per SoWhy.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines. Additionally, per SoWhy. @Kate (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intention of WP:POLITICIAN is to prevent Wikipedia being used as an election advertising billboard, which is exactly what is happening here. Yes, reliable sources can be quoted, but they are about his running for Governor. If we allow the argument that the GNG, based on sources like that, can over-ride WP:POLITICIAN, then POLITICIAN is a dead letter - every candidate for office can show press cuttings based on his being a candidate. I believe the right interpretation of POLITICIAN is that references to do with the candidacy do not count, and notability apart from the candidacy must be shown in order to have an article. JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general notability guideline supersedes any subject specific guidelines (indeed it is the first item on any of the specific guidelines). As shown above he clearly meets the general notability guideline so the article should be kept. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Brussels British Football Club

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. The notability of this FC is contested. I have earnestly checked for non-trivial coverage from reliable publications (All dates on Google News) and came up empty handed. If notability can be effectively demonstrated please notify me on my talk page and I will happily withdraw. JBsupreme (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 04:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the club doesn't look to have played at a high enough level, and no other indications of notability. Giant Snowman 16:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)d[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Dork:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This is a Mozilla Firefox extension. There is nothing notable about it that I can see, and the subject has yet to receive non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very useful tool to show notability (or lack thereof) in Wikipedia articles. It sounds as if I need to add the references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand your !vote. Please do not conflate WP:USEFUL with notability. We require reliable third party sourcing for this and any other subject we cover. JBsupreme (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 04:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't see significant coverage. Just because it might seem useful, doesn't make it notable. LoudHowie (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil linguists

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page as it stands does more harm than good. I redirected once to List of linguists but was reverted by the page creator saying "it's a new page and errors are to be expected". At that point, the only blue link was to S. P. Balasubrahmanyam who is a singer and not a linguist. I left a message on WT:INB to see if someone else could do something about it. One editor removed some irrelevant content and the link to the singer and another editor posted a talk page message. I can't do much for this page as I'm just unable to find anything to create a list or an article. The people included don't even have their full name listed and it's impossible to find anything at all for them. (I'm Tamil and tried some online Tamil sources too.) Delete -SpacemanSpiff 06:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. As per nominator. Also this list neither seems to add any value nor seems to be encyclopaedic. If only part of a name is provided (as has been done for all but one person), then it does not help anyone as there are hundreds, if not thousands of people with that name. There are no links to any linguist in the list and no references for the information provided. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serves no encyvlopedic purpose. The list seems to be pointless. Does it talk about Tamil people who are linguists or people who studied Tamil? None of the names have links. No similar List of linguists seems to exist. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few notable Tamil linguists, but does it need a seperate article?. Kamil Zvelebil, Robert Caldwell, Francis Whyte Ellis, George L. Hart, Constanzo Beschi, Devaneya Pavanar, Maraimalai Adigal,U. V. Swaminatha Iyer, Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai, Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg, Johann Phillip Fabricius,Philip de Melho, Arumuka Navalar, Tokunaga Muneo, Susumu Ōno, Karashima Noboru, S. Vaiyapuri Pillai, Karthigesu Sivathamby loosely fit into the "Tamil Linguist" category. But the same purpose can be served with a Category instead of a new page. And a new page for tamil linguists will probably go this way [27] where vairamuthu and tholkappiyar are sitting in the same table. --Sodabottle (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If something like the ta.wiki page can be done (but referenced, and not like the collection that page is), and the fact that there are quite a few blue links as above, I'm ready to withdraw the nomination if some improvements can be made to the article. A list definitely serves a valid navigational purpose in addition to a category, but it shouldn't be a case of "loosely fit into the Tamil linguist category", should be some well defined criteria. -SpacemanSpiff 14:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats the problem - defining it. :-)). If left to me, i will stick to people who have written books on grammar, phonetics and semantics. Avoid anyone who has "merely" written Tamil literature. But would that be a valid criteria?. I honestly don't know. But i don't want to see karunanidhi, vairamuthu and other authors/writers/poets classified as linguists.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or we could go the ta.wiki way and create a "Tamil Scholar" list instead which would be broadly inclusive. Anyone with a considerably corpus of contributions on Tamil language could be lumped together. Would be easy and avoid a lot of future edit wars--Sodabottle (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I quite agree with you, the ta.wiki article is a bit odd at this point in that it combines unrelated groups to a big category and lists them. But Tamil scholar is too broad a term to actually be of any list value, in that case a category is best. And getting the above names in one list is definitely synthesis and not a good idea, so you've convinced me that my initial deletion rationale still holds good :) -SpacemanSpiff 15:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete Unless something can be said about Tamil linguists as a group, a category suffices. I can potentially imagine a article on Tamil linguistics that would describe how the field developed as an academic area, the role various prominent linguists played, its sub-specialties, relevant journals, publications, societies etc, but this article does not even serve as a useful start. Abecedare (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no minimum size for a list given in WP:LIST, though I would be reluctant to make it if it would never conceivably grow beyond 3 or 4. Sodabottle names a few who have Wikipedia articles, so all the requirements are met. Whether nay of the people currently in the list are eligible will depend on whether Wikipedia articles can be written about them. We should of course, have a category as well as a list. Normally, if we have one, we have the other--they each have advantages. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I'll be more than happy to withdraw the nomination if the article is corrected by someone who can. As for the links presented by Sodabottle, many don't fit with the definition of linguist. The ta.wiki rightfully classifies them as Tamil scholars and not linguists. In the absence of correction, this does more harm than good to our readers. -SpacemanSpiff 05:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No comment

As I have started this page, my comment about this issue is not important. It is for the rest who want to express their opinion. I now just took few names from here for editing the article. Arvind Arokara (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list is indiscriminate, since we have no source or metric for inclusion. In its current state, we have no way of even knowing who the people on the list are, since we are only given last names for most, and there are no articles for most of them. Put another way, this list fails WP:V. I suggest that the article author should create articles on individuals first. 208.59.120.194 (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also Category:Tamil-language writers. • Anakin 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted. I used G2, on the AGF position that the editor copied one article for the format of this one. G3 may also apply, though, per this edit. If this is indeed a plausible search term for Black Nazarene, on which I have no opinion, then a redirect would be preferred. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Doctura

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a copy of the article Black Nazarene entitled under some unknown person's name. It should not be redirected; it should be deleted. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 06:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nobody named "Carlo Doctura" is mentioned in the text of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the article does not meet WP:WEB #1, the only one it can meet, as there is not enough reliable non-trivial coverage of the website, and ought to be deleted. NW (Talk) 00:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Watch

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A largely non-notable website with a rather colorful history on-wiki. It was cited some years back in a few publications, but has yet to achieve any sort of traction on the Internet in terms of visibility or notability. Furthermore, the owner does not wish to have it featured here, FWIW. Seriously - it simply doesn't meet WP:WEB, points 1, 2 and 3. Point 1 is largely trivial, per provided cites. Furthermore, it's Wikipedia introspection at its worst and is of little or no interest outside of the project. Allie ^❤ 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclosure: I've "featured" on this website more than once myself. I do not like it, I do not agree with it's rationale and I have seen it cause RL issues for a number of people. Having said that, it needs to go.)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Allie ^❤ 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The longest media mention in the article is the zdnet interview, which has a single sentence describing the web site. Per WP:WEB criteria #1 this kind of mention is specifically excluded (a brief summary of the nature of the content) from demonstrating notability. All the other mentions are the site name only, with no coverage of the content itself. This does not come close to meeting any of the criteria at WP:WEB. Kevin (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the interpretation of WP:WEB by Kevin, I do not believe this subject to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: How old is this website? It almost looks like an old geocities site.--Milowent (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13 October 2005, as it says in the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but I was looking for blinking text myself.--Milowent (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination provides a clear cut rationale which I will not parrot, but which I agree with. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to repeat the nomination GTD 17:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the role of this website in the controversies it links to are reasonably documented elsewhere, as is the creator of the site. the site itself, while getting mention in various articles here and externally about the controversies (sssjay, siegen), doesnt appear to have notability. as long as we have included its role in those controversies in their articles, and have mentioned it and him in the article Criticisms of Wikipedia, i think we can safely delete this article as nonnotable. i note some of the references here are the site, which is not proper procedure. a link to the site to establish that it exists, or for verifying website claims that are noncontroversial, such as founding date, etc., but not to show notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nom has said it all. RMHED (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree wholeheartedly with nom and with Kevin. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very well sourced and informative article. Most of the arguments for deletion amount to not liking it. It's about a well established website that has received some media attention. It makes the encyclopedia better, and at the worst it should be merged with existing content so the history is not lost. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And salt the AFD to stop this from coming up over and over. - Hoplon (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a specific rationale as to why you feel the article should be kept? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is salting AfDs actually practiced in wikipedia?--Staberinde (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's never done, nor should it be - Allie ^❤ 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A self-reference of a kind and one to avoid unless clear notability is established - which it is not. There is much in the suggestion that this article was started to preserve information previously contained in a biography which was thought (accurately, as it turned out) likely to be deleted. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WEB #1. Very few of the delete arguments here are actually based in relevant policy but rather rehash aspects of Brandt though without acknowledging that they are doing so. The fact that this is a 5th nomination is also very telling; I had thought this approach to deletion was specifically disallowed -- perhaps naive of me. In any event there is no problem with notability here -- as is apparent in the nom's use of the word "largely". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kevin, Sam Blacketer and the nom. Let's be honest here; the only reason we have this article is because it involves enwiki. If someone had set up a site called Conservapedia Watch we would delete any related artcle per WP:WEB. I he brags about how his outing of this or that admin "forced us" to delete it then so be it. Let him rant. If you look at this objectively it's an obvious delete per WP:WEB and that's all that matters here. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle. A 5th nomination for deletion is inherently absurd. — goethean ॐ 14:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly. We've had worse, and besides, standards evolve and cruft is removed. Such is the way - Allie ^❤ 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Please, folks, let's debate the article on its own merits. If this were the fifth nomination over the period of, say, eight months, I'd agree; but it's not. The first AfD was in 2005, about four years ago. More to the point, consensus can change. Therefore, arguments for keeping this article based solely on the fact that it has survived multiple prior AfDs are weak and mostly irrelevant. This article covers a topic on an obscure website with little or no notability. As mentioned above, self-references should be avoided unless the topic is unquestionably significant in real life; this website is mere navel-gazing and nothing more. I agree with the nomination statement and I believe deletion is appropriate. (FWIW, I also have a weak COI with the topic, but it doesn't affect my ability to judge this article in a neutral manner.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kevin. Fails WP:WEB. GlassCobra 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:WEB. The site itself seems ancient (in internet years), outdated, and no longer relevant if it ever was. Some historical value for those interested in such things, maybe, but not notable enough for a WP article. Priyanath ^talk 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:WEB. Per nom. Astronominov 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB.--Staberinde (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This website does not meet our inclusion guidelines and the fact that the article is still here after four discussions is a result of Wikipedian fancruft, in my opinion. It's one of several articles that fall into this scope so we've got to start somewhere. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:WEB per Nomoskedasticity. I realize the project hates Daniel Brandt, but the monthly AFD's of articles related to him, even after a long sabbatical, are thoroughly tiresome especially going on the 5th year at this point, and just because we are supposed to hate someone is a lousy reason to delete info related to them, which is otherwise thoroughly and reliably sourced. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny enough, most of the Brandt haters fell into the 'keep' camp, as these articles are largely here to piss him off, and a slew of them were created at the time. As stated above consensus can change and standards improve & this article no longer meets WP:WEB, if it ever did. Back in the last AfD, which was over two years ago now, Wikipedia Watch had recently featured in the media and it looked like it was on the up-and-up. With two years hindsight, it's patently obvious that was just a flash in the pan, and the site sank into obscurity. Now only Wikipedians care - Allie ^❤ 03:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, we all know Brandt haters want to make him dead to history, reverse reverse psychology not withstanding. This article clearly meets WP:WEB. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Haters" commentary aside, I'm simply not seeing how WP:WEB is being met here at all. Seriously. It's a niche website that flared up briefly over Siegenthaler and Essjay, got a passing, one-liner mention (if at all. Brandt seemed to be the focus) back two years ago, then disappeared off the face of the earth. We have the article criticism of Wikipedia to catch this sort of stuff already and a stale, useless stub such as this one, serves no purpose. Like I said, only Wikipedians know or care - Allie ^❤ 05:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This website does not meet our inclusion guidelines which are fairly clear for websites. ^Chillum 05:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion of a well-sourced article on a web site with criticism of Wikipedia administration would be understood as an example of corruption of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is already infamous for such policy (see Wikipedia Watch for examples of this infamy). It would be self-serving and inethical on the part of admins to deal with criticism of their policies by removing all its traces from the site. Also, the site is obviously notable (this is seen, e.g., from the 12 cites included in the article). I have a feeling that this deletion discussion is motivated by the site's critical stance, and not by its non-notability. Tiphareth -- (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, editors discussing the 4-th AfD nomination of this article have clearly reached consensus that it is notable. I don't think notability could disappear in 2 years: for most criteria of notability (number of sources, etc.), it can only grow with time. -- Tiphareth (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Re: Alison: "Furthermore, the owner does not wish to have it featured here, FWIW", can you provide a link, diff or whatever, if you have one, so I don't have to go on a wild goose chase finding it. Thanks! Sswonk (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the correspondence was in private email, which I won't post here, Mr. Brandt discusses it and declares his desire to have it deleted on Wikipedia Review here - Allie ^❤ 04:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters -- this isn't BLP, and outside BLP deletion policy gives no weight to this sort of request. If Brandt is concerned, he can create (or revive?) an account and post here, where his views can be considered like those of any other. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But do note that the WP:BLP policy extends to all pages, not just the biog. ones. Not saying it's relevant here, but just drawing your attention that point. As for Brandt, he's unable to participate here, old accounts or otherwise, as he has been banned from the project - Allie ^❤ 00:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The search links above demonstrate that the site is referenced in numerous news sources, books and scholarly papers and so passes our notability guideline. As we have several articles covering this general topic area including Wikipedia and Criticisms of Wikipedia, we might consider merging the material into one of them but that is not done by deletion. Complete suppression of the name as a useful search link would be contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not seem to be an important website in any way. There are no press articles actually about Wikipedia Watch listed, just mentions in articles about Wikipedia. Even Daniel Brandt himself seems more notable. Deleting this is not censorship unless we put the notability bar higher because it is critical of Wikipedia. The last AfD appears to have ended in keep because the nomination was bad. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN...Brandt's claim (supposedly) at Wikipedia Review to desire to have this page deleted has nothing to do with it.--MONGO 05:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article, plus the 20 gscholar hits, about 50 gnews hits and 4 or 5 true gbooks hits are quite enough reliable sources to show that this website is notable.John Z (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a well-sourced article that clearly meet WP:WEB criterion number 1. This has been cited by reliable news sources on at least two separate occasions (the Seigenthaler and Essjay controversies in 2005 and 2007 respectively) so does not fall under the auspices of WP:ONEEVENT. Notability is not temporary so just because the site has been quiet since then does not mean that we should delete the article - it was notable at the time and therefore it continues to merit an article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the nomination arguments do not stand criticism, as laready explained. The owner's wish does not matter: tis is not WP:BLP issue. Mukadderat (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOV applies even to our enemies, and the links demonstrated here are way sufficient. I'd even say that NPOV requires we be extra careful about removing articles about our critics, to counter our inevitable bias. I couldn't care what the owner wants, whomever he might be there is no BLP violation and no libel. We need to decide without considering that, for otherwise it might well be said that we have even less reason to honor his prejudices than we might others. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, only it's not about what the site owner wants, it's about whether the article meets WP:WEB and in this instance it's clear that it does not. That Brandt is the owner is neither here nor there; it simply doesn't warrant an article here - Allie ^❤ 20:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in agreement with Nomoskedasticity, Thryduulf, DGG. I think the article is perhaps on the borderline of WP:WEB notability, but I also have trouble with the disclosure statement beyond what's in the nomination that suggests WP:IDL, which I can't support. Bottom line is I wouldn't have thought to nominate for deletion if I had read the article prior to reading this page; the story behind the creation of the article and the arguments for deletion don't convince me it's a good idea. Sswonk (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that those who don't like Mr. Brandt would rather have the article kept than deleted. Just sayin' ... - Allie ^❤ 00:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But equally it should be noted that not all those commenting here are expressing any opinion with regards Mr Brandt, either positive or negative. Personally, I don't even have an opinion about him. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am mystified by Alison's note here. Is it in the right place? I have not expressed an opinion of the WW author nor should it matter. Sswonk (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So am I! :) It was meant to be in reply to User:DGG above. Sorry for the mix-up - Allie ^❤ 02:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Child.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you take a step and he takes a step, both of you get closer to the objective at the middle of the segment that links you and him. HighProphet (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, setting aside the drama, this has received plenty of coverage and a good article can be made from reliable sources. That it's a drama magnet only verifies its notability, IMHO. -- Banjeboi 14:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong IAR Keep as anything that can be viewed as silencing criticism is not in the best interests of the project. All else aside, there are suitable sources, and if the site owner didn't want to be in the public eye, he should have turned down the interviews cited. We can't put the genie back in the bottle for him. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those interviews might show that Brandt is notable, but certainly do not show notability for the website. Kevin (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Virtually everything is a passing mention. Furthermore, those passing mentions are more about Brandt than about the web site he used to publicize his research. Powers ^T 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. We only further demonstrate how Wikipedia turns into a pathetic joke when we allow multiple nominations for deletion until the demanded removal of the article is achieved. When this fails, be assured that the sixth (and seventh, and eighth and ninth, ad nauseam) nominations for deletion will be forthcoming to waste our time and resources. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the record? I've seen one with 14 before deletion.--Milowent (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18th. A troll group. There aren't many that get past 7. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are inherent random elements in AfDs, the participation in the AfD discussion is quite random (volunteers), there is a random element if a deletionist-inclined admin closes the discussion, etc. Say that an article has a 1 out of 5 (20%) chance af being deleted, the overall chance of survival after seven nominations is 0.21 - if it is 1 out of 3, the chance is just 0.08. Small wonder that few get past 7 nominations. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The website is a joke. It clearly fails notability criteria, as the nominator put very eloquently. I can't believe that this article is still here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail WP:WEB; no reason to make an exception in this case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not conform to WP:WEB. Nothing else needs to be said. SirFozzie (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears with the natural puffery of an article that has survived multiple AfDs while having recieved little mention from reliable sources. In part I think this is because we are concerned with not silencing our opposition, although in this case the owner does not wish for it to be featured here. Aside from all the us vs. them hubbub, the website doesn't meet WP:WEB as it hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in third-party sources. The sources given are only passing coverage and this particular website isn't the main subject of the commentary in any. Them From Space 07:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent mention in RS, that's a pass for WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary. Nomination is largely based on WP:IDL, puffed up with imaginary BLP concerns to support or trumph a weak rationale, and irrelevant mention if Brandt would like the article to go. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG requires significant coverage in those reliable sources, not just mentions. Powers ^T 13:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The highly subjective interpretation of that little word is unfortunately the root cause of much discussion around here, sometimes escalating to bitter infighting -- divisive stuff , and always a tremendous drain on energy that could be better spent otherwise. Four prior AfDs found it was significant suggesting that it really is. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That little word "significant" was put there for an important reason, lots of non-notable things get trivial mentions. Consensus can change. ^Chillum 14:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all 3 criteria of WP:WEB. Has not "been the subject of" (my italics) any "non-trivial published works". Of the 7 independent, non-link-dead sources currently in the article:

2 (NYT, SMH) say only that WW is anti-Wikipedia, was started by Mr Brandt
1 (TR) says only that WW was started by Mr Brandt
2 (IDG, TheRegister) mention WW only as a source of deleted pages
1 (Miami Herald) does not mention WW, AFAICT
1 (ZDnet) says only that "Brandt ... runs Wikipedia Watch, a sometimes paranoid, sometimes rational Web site that seeks to keep the project honest."

That's all that these sources say about WW itself! In a closely-related development, none of these articles are about WW; they are all about Mr Brandt and/or Wikipedia, with only passing mentions of WW. So the WP:WEB Criterion 1 score is 0.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of Mr Brandt or WW: by Wikipedia's rules, WW is not WikiNotable, and the article has to go. Cheers, CWC 16:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later note: per Robofish, if article is deleted, we should add some info about WW to Criticism of Wikipedia. CWC 09:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and fails WP:WEB criteria. Paz y Unidad (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia) - the coverage in reliable sources is not significant, as required for WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Working from what we've got in the sources available, a mention of this website in Criticism of Wikipedia or Siegenthaler incident would be acceptable, but there isn't enough to justify an independent article. Robofish (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My disagreement with these arguments that stress the word significant is that multiple independent sources cite WW as an example of reasons to question Wikipedia's reliability as a research source. Three found quickly on Google Scholar are: [28], a research paper; [29], a patent application and [30], a Feng Chia University student thesis, all formally describing WW as an important source of information regarding challenges to Wikipedia reliability. This leads me to conclude that, as Wikipedia ranks somewhere in the bottom half of the top ten of internet traffic statistics worldwide on several lists, and its use as a research tool is questioned, WW will be referenced in historical discussions of Wikipedia's development in the course of years and decades to come. The individual citations in the article do not tell the complete story. They can be dissected and have their significance questioned, however WP:WEB also mentions "historical significance" for which the site's notability can be secured. I was hesitant to point out the use of WP:WEASEL terms beginning with "largely" in the nomination and the overall WP:IDL tone of the nomination, however these weaknesses in the nomination place an onus on those who support deletion to provide irrefutable evidence that the site is not notable. This has not been done, and therefor the article does not "have to go" based on WP:WEB. Sswonk (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the fact remains that the non-primary sources available just don't cover the subject in enough detail for us to write an article. Aside from "Wikipedia Watch is run by Daniel Brandt and criticizes Wikipedia", everything else has to be sourced to primary sources. That is not a good indicator of notability. Powers ^T 14:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, Julian, and nom. @Kate (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news finds 62 mentions of it. [31] seems to take it seriously. And honestly now, how many times must you try to destroy something, before giving up? Keep now, and forever, notability established. Dream Focus 02:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia has spawned critics, including a website called Wikipedia Watch" and "...says Wikipedia Watch's Daniel Brandt" is the entire mention in the article you cite. Both are excluded from demonstrating notability by WP:WEB, in the first case because it is a brief summary of the nature of the content, and the second because it is simply the name of the site. Kevin (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an article to bend over backwords to keep even if you have to take it out of the main article space to do it. -- allen四names 03:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any policy based reasoning to back that up? To be frank, those opinions that are not based in policy are not likely to be given much consideration at closing time. ^Chillum 14:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that deletion arguments are based merely on guideline and (WP:IDL), whereas keeps (merges included) are based precisely on policy - WP:PRESERVE -- and disagreements over the subjective meaning of significant which is also interpreted as non-passing. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PRESERVE says "fix problems if you can". If there are no non-primary sources to support the content of the article, then how exactly can we fix that? We can't fix that the article fails our notability standards. WP:IDL is not the basis of the deletion argument and while WP:NOTABILITY may be a guideline, it is one the community takes seriously in deletion debate. The policy in question WP:Verifiability which says "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The subject of this article has only trivial mentions in third-party published sources which in no way support the actual content of the article. ^Chillum 16:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete based on fact-specific analysis of the situation. Over the years, I've come to believe that Wikipedia really can't do a good job when it comes to material personally associated with its critics. There's just too many people who want to take potshots at a critic, using such articles as weapons. Not everyone, of course - but more than enough to cause constant problems. So if, as in this case, the article is marginal (and that's obviously true), and the critic has stated they'd like to see it deleted (which is true here), then the article should go. Anything else is just causing misery for little benefit to anyone. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Brandon (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Developer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Recently coined job title. Problem is, the person who is claimed to have coined the term is also the article's creator, and no actual usage is asserted. By the way, I would like to know whether there's any company out there that expects its developers to not be creative. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems similar to Creative services (also unsourced), im not so sure this is notable and even if it were we would need a re-write. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few uses of this title out there; the problem is, no two of them seem to mean the same thing, even in the same industry, and thus this entry could just as easily be wrong as right. There's certainly nothing I could find that backs up this particular usage except self-created references to/by the article's creator. Probably more suitable for Wiktionary and/or Urban Dictionary but since there's no widely-agreed-upon definition, I wouldn't recommend transwiki-ing. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. The COI doesn't help things, and as the nominator says, it is slightly hard to imagine the term catching on since it appears to be slightly redundant. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is reminiscent of a WP:DICDEF, and a very confusing one at that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Software Engineer. Even by the user's own definition, it's just a smart Software Engineer.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism and veiled self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Conversion to a DAB page would not be appropriate, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches, and the argument of two users that they used this to discover what "pied" meant is met by a soft redirect from Pied to Wiktionary. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of things described as pied

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a repository of loosely associated topics. This list constitutes both and should therefore be deleted. Neelix (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I beg to differ on the above points. Firstly, the list is certainly not indiscriminate; it is limited to names and phrases that use the term 'pied' descriptively, acting both as a navigation aid and a list in which to check whether a particular name using the term has been pre-empted. Secondly, neither are most of the items in the list loosely associated; they refer to the common names of animals, principally birds. I suppose that the non-animal items in the list could be removed; they are largely incidental - included to increase the usefulness of the list (even if only marginally) for anyone looking for things described as 'pied' generally - but why lose information for some sort of conceptual tidiness? Maias (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab. That's what the page currently looks like anyway. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambig page- I agree with Blanchardb. Reyk _YO! 05:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to make it a dab page again; it was only made a list because an editor objected to it being a dab in the first place (see page history, 27 September 2008). Maias (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm in agreement here. Weak convert to disambiguation page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC), modified to weak 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Change !vote to delete. They're right, this isn't a dab at all, and this, as a list, really should not live here. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 09:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambig - As detailed above, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - If this was a disambiguation page, all the entries would be invalid because they are all partial title matches. This page is neither acceptable as a list nor as a disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was trying to work out what "Pied" in "Pied Piper" meant, and ended up at this page, where I was interested to find that the same word "pied" is used to describe various birds. This should not be a disambig page, for the reasons Neelix gives. Perhaps it could be tidied and trimmed to make a short article on the concept of "pied". Perhaps it should be moved back to Pied. ComputScientist (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with compuscientist. I too was wondering what "pied" meant. don't care about the list. Zeke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.155.166 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was first going to ask Zeke, above, why he didn't just look up Pied, and then I found out why - it's a redirect to the aforementioned article. Looking at the history of the article, the article has had some edit history issues - prior to the move from Pied to the above article, there was an issue as to somebody creating a redirect to Piebald as a likely search. Other people were involved, and then User:Maias had restored from the previous edit and moved it. I refuse to call WP:POINT, as I think that Maias was acting in the interest of preserving the article - basically, I'm assuming good faith on his part. But I'm still not sure this really is a good source of a redirect or disambiguation page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The only argument which has been presented thus far for keeping this page, either as a disambiguation page or as a list, is that it is useful for users attempting to figure out what the word "pied" means. This is not a valid argument for keeping the page. The claim that a page is useful has been specifically identified as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The title "List of things described as pied" should be deleted because it is, by necessity, a list of partial title matches, which are prohibited on disambiguation pages. Pied, however, is free to be a disambiguation page, but the only entries I can think of that would be valid disambiguation page entries are Pieing and Piebald (and a link to Wiktionary). In any case, that page is not part of this discussion. This page should not be moved back to Pied because a "list of things described as" is explicitly not what a disambiguation page is supposed to be. Neelix (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per:

Pied can be made a soft redirect to Wiktionary for the readers wondering what "pied" means, or an article (not a list) if encyclopedic coverage can be added. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the soft redirect from Pied. An alternative would be to redirect it to Piebald. The list should still be deleted, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ye gods, I forgot about the Eep2 stuff! We gimped those for the same reason. For the author of the article, I hate to say it, but they're right on this one, I gotta go this route. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 09:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This absolutely does not meet the purpose of a disambiguation page, because virtually none of these entries are referred to as "pied." For example, it is not reasonable that someone would refer to the Northern Pied-babbler as "pied," or that they would search for that bird under the title "pied," or expect the article about that bird to be located at the title "pied." These topics are not ambiguous and, as pointed out above, our disambiguation guidelines (WP:D#Partial title matches) explicitly say that this sort of thing should not be included on a disambiguation page. I was the one who redirected the list (back when it was a disambig page) to Piebald, because it appeared to be the only topic listed that was actually (occasionally) referred to as just "Pied" (and I wouldn't object to such a redirect being reinstated). As for the argument that this article should be kept because Wikipedia should have a page or article defining every single word in the English language, whether or not there's anything else to say about it: that is what a dictionary is for. Propaniac (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are reasons we have a prominent search box, and avoiding pages like this would be one of them. This is not a disambiguation page, this is a list. By analogy, are we to create a list of things described as "red"? Josh Parris 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate. ^Bongo_matic 03:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Hickman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is non-notable. Sherdog.com, the accepted source for MMA fighter records, shows him as never having fought a professional MMA fight. (The fights listed in the article are belonging to a "Franklin Hickman" and are amateur bouts.) Fails WP:Athlete and general rules regarding notability. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -—TreyGeek (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject clearly fails WP:Athlete. In addition, www.sherdog.com and www.mixedmartialarts.com show no fights for "George Hickman". The two fights mentioned in the article were amateur fights and the North Carolina Boxing Authority lists the winner as "Franklin Hickman". Even if George and Franklin are the same person, 2 amateur fights don't make him notable as an MMA fighter and neither does his wrestling record where he was 0-2 in the NCAA tournament (according to the Bloomsburg U. sports information report dated 3/19/09). Papaursa (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he's never fought, only potential fights were amateur ones which doesn't help him pass WP:ATH.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. I disagree about this being notable, but the consensus will definitely end up being keep because they think that it is inherently notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis and Administration

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this ~~company~~ organization. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like its a company Joe, maybe a government organization which is my expertise, let me look around and see what there is to work with. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you see this? -Marcusmax(speak) 02:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of US DOT and has regulatory authority, a good bit of regulations accessible through Gnews. -SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As part of the USDOT and STB, its certainly notable, but if it doesn't merit its own page, it should be merged into the existing subsection at Surface Transportation Board and redirected there.--Milowent (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No coherent rationale for deletion, extensive coverage, consequential government agency, plausible search term. Needs a rewrite, since it's minimally paraphrased from the official site, but since that's not a copyvio, it isn't a deletion issue. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sumita Louis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is not important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couldn't think of a decent username (talk • contribs) 2009/11/12 17:51:33

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if anything mentioned in this article met WP:N then this would be a WP:BLP1E. But actually I don't see anything notable at all. Ivanvector (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Leonard (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one entry is actually called Richard Leonard. This article has a hatnote to J. Rich Leonard. This page therefore serves no purpose. According to MOS:DAB, The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as an unnecessary dab -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Pine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress per WP:ENT. In the 24 films listed, her characters are only named in 10. Most recent credit is "Harassed Girl #2." --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to fund any reliable sources writing about her. The link to the Arnie fans website in ther article s not a reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 04:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jones (clarinetist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician per WP:ENT. Was a member of one notable ensemble (The United States Air Force Band), criteria requres two. No other claims to notability. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the stub failed to meet either WP:MUSIC or WP:PROF; he may be talented but he's NN. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moneymar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A speedy of this article was declined, on the grounds that notability is asserted. But despite the claims of gigs attracting thousands of fans, a "Gulf Weekly" interview etc., a Google search excluding facebook, myspace etc. yields no supporting evidence for these whatever. Philip Trueman (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of rock/pop guitarists

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of rock/pop guitarists

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No defined criteria, rock/pop is so broad that it will include most guitarists. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list is a few hundred names at most, and the category:American rock guitarists alone shows at least 1300. for this list to be useful, it would have to contain thousands of names. category system breaks it down better into subcategories. nom is right, this is too broad a subject for a list article, like "list of motion picture stars" which doesnt exist. (ooh, lots there that is really broken, with links called "list of actors" piped to "lists of actors". sloppy)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mercurywoodrose. --UncleDouggie (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is redundant to various categories. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillabox

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an organization that fails to establish the notability of the organization with reliable secondary sources. I've done a search and there is nothing available that would justify this article. Reyk _YO! 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This kind of two sentence nothingness should be speedy deletable. Miami33139 (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Canhos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced biography of a non-notable model. A google search reveals little writeup outside of blogs, facebook, etc. and even less in reliable sources. Claims of notability as being "on 100 Most Beautiful Women in the World list" does not stand up to scrutiny Astronaut (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find anything in reliable sources beyond being mentioned as competing for some competition related to Maxim. [32], [33] are insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person has been photographed, and some of those photographs are available on the internet. That's about it. No notability, and an English-only speaker is not likely to easily source any, so little prospect of improvement, until/unless the subject suddenly becomes famous. Should go as ASAP, as it's a typically dire article, of a type that does WKP no credit every day it stays up. Centrepull (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SyncMate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and unsourced software. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Slightly promotional and the only links in the article go to the product vendor. Majority of content written by account suspicious of paid editing Miami33139 (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Brandon (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Freda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:CREATIVE. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm amazed this article has lasted this long. I'm sure that Amber is good at what she does, but I'm not seeing how she's at all notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Brandon (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Least Sustainable Societies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the author, this was an assignment for a university project. As the title suggests, it's an essay on "Least Sustainable Societies" which is somewhat at odds with NPOV. Also, since it's an essay, it seems to violate no original research and no synthesis. I originally mentioned my concerns to the author, and placed a prod tag, which the author removed, so I'm bringing it here. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy as nominator, for the reasons above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. Appears to be part of a student project - see other participants. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a full blown essay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted per WP:SNOW/WP:CSD#G11; page then redirected to MonaVie EyeSerene^talk 10:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MonaVie Active

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be a promotional fork of MonaVie, essentially going over the same ground with less overall balance. While MonaVie certainly appears to be a notable product, there doesn't appear to be any information that shows this particular product is notable on its own, or requires a separate article. Since all of the major material here appears to be covered in the MonaVie article, this can probably be deleted (and potentially be replaced by a redirect to MonaVie). Bfigura ^(talk) 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and indefinitely block User:Ott jeff. It's just a WP:CFORK by a user who has done nothing since his arrival at Wikipedia but promote MonaVie. The article exists solely because the people who have MonaVie on their watchlists won't allow him to whitewash the article there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Block - While the article may have contained strong references, it is promotional (although not entirely) per WP:CFORK. I agree with FisherQueen. Ott jeff (talk · contribs) may have been an employee of the company.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 01:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and FisherQueen; nothing but self-promotion of a non-notable product. Giant Snowman 01:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. ~~Shoot~~ Block article creator. Crafty (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment author has been blocked by PeterSymonds. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are about the company, not this product, except for the company's press releasese which are not usable. Removed press releases, removed ingredients list, removed promotional material for company. There's nothing in the article, because there was nothing to begin with that was appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it's unlikely anyone other than the creator will ever edit the article except to redirect it to MonaVie or dispute Jeff's claims (this is Jeff's last edit to the article). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that this person does not pass WP:PORNBIO has consensus Kevin (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy Cruise

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little in the way of sources. Even being a Penthouse (Australia) Pet of the month does not establish WP:N --Elsa Baye (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Why was this recreated? Dismas|^(talk) 14:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure why Australian Penthouse Pet's are not note worthy if US ones are. Penthouse Australia is licensed by Penthouse International and has a large circulation throughout Australasia. Many of the Pets have wiki pages - see Kobe Kaige, etc.(Rolfhebrew12 talk) 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Simply being a Penthouse Pet does not establish notability. Not per WP:PORNBIO or the general notability guidelines. Also, you might want to see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Dismas|^(talk) 11:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These sources are pretty weak if you ask me. If we're going strictly by WP:PORNBIO I think this would be a delete but I'm going to refrain from !voting (at this time). JBsupreme (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cassidy has had a nomination for the 'Pet of the Year' award twice. Horwitz278 (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comment, but I believe that matter has already been addressed by Dismas one week ago. JBsupreme (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the question should be to determine if Cassidy is notable within Australia. The specifics of notability are fuzzy at best and therefore regionality should be taken into account to give wikipedia the best global validity. (a reserve member of the olympic bobsleigh team from Austria may not be notable while every member of the jamaican team could be! )DrewMorgan (talk) 1:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.61.200.75 (talk)
Comment. Cassidy has shot with Ed Fox again this year for 'Pet of The Month' (see PH official blog) and recieved a nomination for the 'Pet of the Year' award.Rolfhebrew12 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Point 2 of WP:PORNBIO states that a person is notable if... 'Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years'. The 'Pet of the Year' award in Australia is probably the best known local Adult Award in this country so again it seems to come down to if Australia counts in Wikipedia.Rolfhebrew12 (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wasn't she also nominated for Hustler's Miss Centrefold Oceana. She was on the cover twice. 65.61.200.75 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yep she was on the cover of Hustler twice. Nov/Dec 2006 and Oct/Nov 2007. 123.208.246.59 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please don't erase Cassidy :) She is a notable personality here in OZ and was my favorite girl at the Sydney SEXPO (OK fav local girl). She has been featured heaps of times in the media and I should know as I seem to spend most of my packet on the Mags of that bludger Packer where she is a regular.123.208.255.229 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agent SVN

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likewise unable to find significant coverage of the software. Jujutacular ^T · C 08:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kidnapping of Michaela Garecht

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the media coverage this is basically a WP:BLP1E issue. There is also a WP:NOT issue, Wikipedia is not a venue for "please help find" or "please come home" activities. ukexpat (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be for a move to Michaela Garecht if she's notable~~, but failing that, delete per the above arguments~~. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC), struck the delete 07:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event if only because of the very considerable media coverage at the time (justified or not). Needs extensive rewording to move it away from current 'Reward Offered' flyer appearance, and speculative statements need trimming, but should make a decent pre-internet news media event article. Centrepull (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How heartwrenching! I know that's not a reason to keep an article, but I do agree with Centrepull that notability is established in the coverage and the number of leads. I think it needs a major rewrite by someone who's not so close to the event. Quote the family from a press clipping or from AMW, but the article looks like a loving letter to a missing child, not an encyclopedia article. I'm so sorry to the family! Dcs002 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Irrespective of the coverage is it still not a notable for one event issue, heartbreaking though it is for the family? Kidnappings always receive a lot of coverage so are we saying they are all de facto notable? – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not all kidnappings, but perhaps all that rise to this level of public interest. JonBenét Ramsey was also notable for one event. The only difference I see is the amount of coverage. Where should WP draw the line? For other individuals, notability is far easier than this to establish.

Sure, I never heard of her until I read this article, but I never watch any of the TV shows that featured her story. But they are immensely popular shows. There are an awful lot of WP articles on people who haven't had one tenth the national media coverage Michaela has had. On that basis, she certainly seems very notable to me. And why do we know about her? Is that really an important question? I think cases like this become iconic in people's minds and therefore become part of our culture. Dcs002 (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not an argument against deletion, we are talking about this article. We draw the line at significant coverage as per policy. – ukexpat (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm trying to edit the article to make it more subjective and more appropriate as an encyclopedic article. BUT I do not believe it should be deleted. It is certainly be eligible for the category of kidnapped american children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kidnapped_American_children. Similarly it is a story which has stayed in the national media for the past 21 years on many high profile shows. Most recently it has been due to its connetions to the high profile Jaycee Lee Dugard case. Similarly the suspect Phillip Garrido is being investigated as a possible suspect in this case.

There are MANY webpages dedicated to Michaela Garecht and therefore I think it is only appropriate that an offical wikipedia page is made and I believe it will be of interest to many people. People are fascinated by the fact that it has still not been solved YET it is not a cold case. It is still being investigated by police 21 years later.

I am editing according to the above suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zara565 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: This article does meet the criteria for WP:N/CA, but it needs to be almost completely rewritten.Cathardic (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But also see WP:VICTIM... – ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this article isn't about the victim, it's about the crime, though there's probably only going to be enough decent content for a stub. While I hate cluttering wikipedia with the news cycle and pet projects, this abduction, by virtue of being on abunch of "media sources" (read: sensationalist tv) does belong.Cathardic (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry that's just semantics, the crime and the victim are inextricably linked, so WP:VICTIM is relevant. This may rise to a Matthew Shephard or Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard level of notability, but I don't think it's there yet. – ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i remember this getting intensive news coverage, which may show media bias, but still establishes notability. i think that a little effort could clean up article and find good support for notability. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has now been edited to make it more appropriate and I believe it is now totally eligible for wikipedia. If nothing it certainly comes under a 'unsolved mystery' catergory. The crime was a notable event and many people remember it at the time it happened. Many people search the net to find out 'what happened?'- this justifies a wikipedia entry in itself. Additionally this case is still being investigated therefore it will most definately be of encyclopedic status when the case is finally resolved- '21 year mystery solved'. The point of an encyclopedia is to look up facts about anything including high-profile crimes.

It could possibly be re-written from the angle of a kidnapping which happened before 'Amber Alert's' and the internet, etc? Zara565 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I changed my !vote essentially. It's been modified as to more of a proper page. However, I think that moving it to just the proper name of the kidnapped person would be more suited to the article. It's granted that it's about her, and this is exactly why I'd suggest this route. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (and I hate it when I forget the tildes!)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Dennis The Tiger. Other notable child crime victims (Steven Stayner, JonBenét Ramsey, and Adam Walsh) have their articles titled by name only. Dcs002 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Stewart

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

False and libelous information is constantly added to this article in order to advance the subject's agenda and the individual is only notable for her failed lawsuit, which falls under WP:BLP1E. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seem to be enough sources to say it is notable. Perhaps it should be protected against changes for a year or two. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave a really good look at those "sources" : nothing in here above the usual internet buzz. Just the first "references" : the copyright notice is about another work altogether. The others are all but serious. I did the research because I proposed the article for deletion 3 days ago on fr.wp (discussion there for those interested - some arguments were "there is an article on en.wp"...recursivity inside). Blinking Spirit (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Going per Blinking Spirit's argument above. Article is a major case of WP:COATRACK - it's not about Sophia, it's about the circumstances around her lawsuits. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Stewart won her lawsuit against the Wachowski Brothers, Joel Silver and Warner Brothers on August 11, 2009!!! http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sophia-Stewart/8212353494 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.110.8 (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC) — 69.251.110.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete A facebook claim is just that, a facebook claim. It has absolutely no relevance to a Wikipedia article. I could claim to have been declared the Supreme Overlord of Earth by the UN, and it would have just as much merit. DarkAudit (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's apparent claim to notability is that she wrote a novel or story which, according to a lawsuit she filed, was plagiarized in both The Terminator and The Matrix franchises. However, there have been lots of cases where people have claimed that hit movies were plagiarized from their works. These lawsuits are generally not notable unless the plaintiff wins their case. There are no reliable sources that state that Sophia Stewart won her lawsuit against the filmmakers of either The Terminator or The Matrix series, and she has received relatively little media coverage in independent reliable sources over these claims. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three edits 2009-11-20 adding bogus victory of lawsuit(s) by user Decidenow who I'm confident is Sophia herself. --Citizen P (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominator...--Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90. Pinkadelica ^♣ 01:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. seems to be weak keeps, but that is okay, certainly can revisit at a later point in time. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone (comedian)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable comedian, supposedly only performing for two years. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. Warrah (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have quite an impressive number of online contributions for multiple humor websites, not to mention his contributions to Comedy Central. I'd vote a weak keep.Cuindless (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web published since at least 2006. HBN increasing in popularity due to connection with Cracked and contract has just renewed for a full season. Would argue for "significant 'cult' following" as per WP:ENTERTAINER #2. Sainge.spin (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Edit: I am a contributing author, at this point possibly the primary author. Sainge.spin (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humor writer for Comedy Central and Cracked, also does viral web videos under the name Hate By Numbers, that frequently appear on DIGG's mainpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Char boy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted. He has quite a following thanks to HBN and has written for Comedy Central's website a few times as well. 74.212.38.129 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article should be kept. He's only going to get more popular anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevets01 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally Gladstone qualifies ast WP:AUTHOR under the clause stating "[t]he person has created ... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work". HBN is about to enter it's third season, just as the popular web series The Guild has. Its combined episodes have been viewed over a million times. Perhaps the article could be edited to be a "Hate By Numbers" page or reworked to better meet biographic requirements, but deletion seems to be overboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.96.190 (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has quite a wealth of published materials, is read and viewed on a relatively ritual basis, and finds himself located atop the charts of Digg usually at least once per week. His presence is felt with his influence on Cracked.com, a site whose popularity has greatly increased in thanks to his web series HBN. Has nowhere to go but up (figuratively speaking, he could technically go down) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.118 (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of deleting Gladstone's page? Carrot Top has a wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_top). I ask you, what has he ever contributed to anything? Besides an increase in support for mandatory sterilisation. Gladstone is a wonderful contributor to the world of comedy writing and I suggest you reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.90.127 (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While earliest Hate By Numbers episodes averaged 100,000 views total, Season 3 premier (Nov 16) topped 100,000 views in about 15 hours. Now one of the most anticipated & popular series on Cracked and re-posted on many other websites. (primary author) Sainge.spin (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved article to Gladstone (humorist, writer) to more accurately reflect scope of Gladstone's work. Would prefer ultimately to move to "Gladstone," but page is in exists as redirect-- awaiting consensus on AFD. (primary author) Sainge.spin (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak keep. I'm ignoring the rules a bit, but the credentials seem valid. I'm just not seeing the WP:RS though - lots of primary stuff, but nothing much in secondary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with option to revisit. I've been on the fence about this one. I share Dennis's concern about the lack of secondary sources. I think the best thing for this article is to continue to work on it. Let's see where it is in six months or a year. If there are secondary sources, then no problem. If it's deteriorated with the addition of fancruft but no reliable sources, then back to AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Appears to be put together half-way decently. With cleanup, could be better. Carter | Talk to me 05:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keep in mind that this does not preclude merging the article NW (Talk) 01:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a slang dictionary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are two newspaper articles about homeless dogs in Puerto Rico. Both articles use the term "satos". I think that these articles are enough to prove notability. From the Hartford Courant and from The New York Times -- Eastmain (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another reference from MS-NBC: [34] As that article says, "sato" is a word for "mutt" - which is more slang than the other? Besides, if you walk around in Puerto Rico they seem notable enough. Like the dogs, the article needs to be neutered rather than euthanised for best effect. Wnt (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article just about the word 'Sato', it's about the topic of these stray dogs in Puerto Rico. It could be a merge candidate for Free-ranging urban dog. Fences&Windows 21:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Brandon (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Top Ten Weird Dismissals Of Cricket

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there are a lot of Google hits, there appears to be no coverage outside of blogs and forums. Therefore, no coverage by reliable sources, and meets no other criteria of WP:WEB. Singularity42 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Something Created While On Break From School One Day. DarkAudit (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't significant coverage of the video. Jujutacular ^T · C 08:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly hopeless case. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Youtube video. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Johnlp (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Williams (Son of Dork)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability shown outside band. Apart from a small amount of uncourced personal info the article is about the band. Redirect is not appropriate due to title being not a reasonable search term. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duffbeer. Just so I get the lay of the land ... you're fine w/the apparent notability of the band and other band members who have their own articles? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band, claims multiple charting = claims notable. James Bourne member of both Busted (band) and Son of Dork, ie member of 2*notable band = claims notable. Steve Rushton not fine, solo career may make him notable, needs more of a look. Chris Leonard, not fine with his notability, tagged article with my concern. Danny Hall, no article. duffbeerforme (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's helpful. Leaning delete, but want to see what others unearth/say, if anything.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An entry on the David Williams dab page linking to Son of Dork would be adequate.--Michig (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any criterion at WP:MUSIC to warrant a separate article from Son of Dork. Jujutacular ^T · C 08:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Gubernatorial Election, 2012

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This election won't be held for another three years; there has been no coverage whatsoever in the press thus far, let alone substantial coverage, and this article is essentially unsourced speculation at this point. Obviously this article ought to be created in the future, but at the present time I argue that we should delete it per WP:CRYSTAL. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to West Virginia elections, 2012, by the same author. That one seems like a legit article, but this one is about an event where even the primaries are more than two years away. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the article, there's not really anything worth merging. It is, as I said, unsourced speculation. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a West Virginian, I can confirm that there is virtually no discussion of the 2012 elections in the media, at least in the northern part of the state. As such, WP:CRYSTAL applies. DarkAudit (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL: lack of coverage in media currently. Jujutacular ^T · C 08:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 08:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GameAbilitation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title is unquestionably a neologism (Google search). The strange reference to a "research non-profit movement" on the talk page suggests that this is actually about a specific organisation. Too much of an essay and the refs are not specific enough. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of this might be profitably merged at serious game, even if "GameAbilitation" sounds like somebody's lame idea for a new buzzword. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find little evidence that this term exists, except for a suspicion that Tonybrooks was involved in the ArtAbilitation research and is citing himself. His contributions show that has cited this research frequently. This page should be deleted and further research should be done to done to check if ArtAbilitation is worthy of inclusion. Reach Out to the Truth 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO --Teancum (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.